Git Migration: where to host the master repository
yawar.amin at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 16:39:22 EDT 2012
On 2012-08-13, at 13:55, Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> If nothing else it would
> reduce my bandwitdh consumption significantly ;)
Yes, I was thinking about this too :-)
> I just still feel that the master repo should be on code, and that the
> committers should be able to push there. Then it can sync to github for
> everyone else.
> I suppose it could work in reverse, where the committers push to github
> master and then code pulls from there, but I don't like that as much for
> reasons that I'm still apparently not able to clearly explain.
Since Git is distributed, the above two strategies are the same. The only difference is which repo will be behind by several hours or minutes depending on the pull frequency.
> But just to reiterate, I am NOT saying we should not use github. I'm
> only saying that I feel the canonical repository should still live on
Agreed. Canonical though is a matter of consensus, again because of Git's distributed nature. I agree that we should 'bless' code.gnucash.org as canonical.
More information about the gnucash-devel