On 9/17/07, Georg Grabler wrote:

Well, if i remember right, somebody already offered you a git repository on projects.archlinux.org.

That was mostly as an 'upstream' repository for submitting changes for the current AUR. If we need a centralized git repo for aur2 work, then I can probably swing something, but it wouldn't be something quickly done. The projects infrastructure is not set up for non-dev remote write access.

If the choice falls onto archlinux-projects, for a git repository you'd might have to wait a week (or till the weekend), since i start my two week vacation then, where i have enough time to get around this.

I've never set up git before (and didn't read closer yet), and therefore it will take much more time than setting up a svn server (which is already running on http://svn.archlinux-projects.org/repos, since i received the domains archlinux-projects.org and stiat.net today, and moved my blog to blog.stiat.net ).

Currently, i'm on the task of migrating data from the old, to the new server, as well as i'm still looking for a cms which fits my needs. I've already tried about 5 cms, but all of them were quite overloaded or just not really the best choice for a seroius information page, or just had major flaws.

Just a suggestion. Don't spend too much time on choosing a CMS. I say slap a blog engine up and call it good enough for now.

@AUR2 Devs: I decided i'll try to provide you a git repo asap, means that it this task went some entries up in my tasklist ;).

Well. Thinking about it.. git, as well as other distributed scm systems, are largely pull based. Sure they can be centralized (a subset of distributed), but I don't think we need to rush out and create a central repo. The arch devs can certainly create a 'master' repo that people can pull from. Then each of the devs that want to contribute can either put their own repo online that we can pull from, or they can submit mail patchgobs for inclusion. This is how the pacman source submission process works, as well as the linux kernel. So if you want to setup a central repo for people to work from, that is great. However, I think for upstream submission, we will probably just use pull or patchgob instead of direct push from everyone. Something to consider at the very least...

The one has nothing to do with others, in my eyes. Having a pull based / patch based repo, user based branches and development structure, and having a repository are two pair of shoes. Btw: archlinux.org finally got a page ;). Yours, Georg On 9/18/07, Paul Mattal wrote:

...

...

@AUR2 Devs: I decided i'll try to provide you a git repo asap, means

eliott wrote: that it

...

...

this task went some entries up in my tasklist ;).

Well. Thinking about it.. git, as well as other distributed scm systems, are largely pull based. Sure they can be centralized (a subset of distributed), but I don't think we need to rush out and create a central repo.

The arch devs can certainly create a 'master' repo that people can pull from. Then each of the devs that want to contribute can either put their own repo online that we can pull from, or they can submit mail patchgobs for inclusion.

This is how the pacman source submission process works, as well as the linux kernel.

So if you want to setup a central repo for people to work from, that is great. However, I think for upstream submission, we will probably just use pull or patchgob instead of direct push from everyone.

Elliott,

Thanks MUCHLY for posting this, which is EXACTLY what I was going to say, but hadn't the time to get it out.

As the one currently rolling releases for the existing AUR, my current plan is to make and maintain a GIT repo on my own server and do releases from a release branch in that repo.

I will then coordinate with other trusted developers like Joerie and the original team and start pulling/cherrypicking their changes as appropriate. I'll probably pull from their own git branches directly to a development branch and cherrypick specific changes for the stable branch as necessary.

As necessity dictates, I will consider giving Simo/Jason/other people who wish to be allowed to actually do releases the ability to push directly to my git repo, though they can also just make releases from their own git repos as long as we all pull each others changes.

I'd be happy to hear comments on this model. It sounds like the way git was intended to be used, and much like the way Linus uses it for the kernel.

- P

_______________________________________________ arch-projects mailing list arch-projects@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-projects

On 9/19/07, Paul Mattal wrote:

eliott wrote:

...

...

@AUR2 Devs: I decided i'll try to provide you a git repo asap, means that it this task went some entries up in my tasklist ;).

Well. Thinking about it.. git, as well as other distributed scm systems, are largely pull based. Sure they can be centralized (a subset of distributed), but I don't think we need to rush out and create a central repo.

The arch devs can certainly create a 'master' repo that people can pull from. Then each of the devs that want to contribute can either put their own repo online that we can pull from, or they can submit mail patchgobs for inclusion.

This is how the pacman source submission process works, as well as the linux kernel.

So if you want to setup a central repo for people to work from, that is great. However, I think for upstream submission, we will probably just use pull or patchgob instead of direct push from everyone.

Elliott,

Thanks MUCHLY for posting this, which is EXACTLY what I was going to say, but hadn't the time to get it out.

As the one currently rolling releases for the existing AUR, my current plan is to make and maintain a GIT repo on my own server and do releases from a release branch in that repo.

I will then coordinate with other trusted developers like Joerie and the original team and start pulling/cherrypicking their changes as appropriate. I'll probably pull from their own git branches directly to a development branch and cherrypick specific changes for the stable branch as necessary.

As necessity dictates, I will consider giving Simo/Jason/other people who wish to be allowed to actually do releases the ability to push directly to my git repo, though they can also just make releases from their own git repos as long as we all pull each others changes.

I'd be happy to hear comments on this model. It sounds like the way git was intended to be used, and much like the way Linus uses it for the kernel.

- P

_______________________________________________ arch-projects mailing list arch-projects@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-projects

Agreed. On 9/19/07, Georg Grabler wrote:

The one has nothing to do with others, in my eyes. Having a pull based / patch based repo, user based branches and development structure, and having a repository are two pair of shoes.

I was just going to suggest Drupal but you beet me to it and implemented it :P