I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
On the same train of thought: I'd like to fix the older commits with just usernames on them. Problem being this will wreck the history since it'd change the sha sums of all the commits.
Same goes for the AUTHORS file...
Would anyone be terribly averse to this? It just looks better..
-S
On 10/29/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
On the same train of thought: I'd like to fix the older commits with just usernames on them. Problem being this will wreck the history since it'd change the sha sums of all the commits.
Same goes for the AUTHORS file...
Would anyone be terribly averse to this? It just looks better..
Not sure what you are envisioning as far as changes go. Are you thinking of changing people's names?
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 05:26:15PM -0700, eliott wrote:
On 10/29/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
On the same train of thought: I'd like to fix the older commits with just usernames on them. Problem being this will wreck the history since it'd change the sha sums of all the commits.
Same goes for the AUTHORS file...
Would anyone be terribly averse to this? It just looks better..
Not sure what you are envisioning as far as changes go. Are you thinking of changing people's names?
Just to the extent of completing version history. That is, replacing usernames with "$name <$email>", like normal git commits.
-S
Just to the extent of completing version history. That is, replacing usernames with "$name <$email>", like normal git commits.
ahh. Ok. That makes sense.
I put those usernames in the AUTHORS file because I didn't know what people's full names and emails were. Also, some people might not want their full name in it. Feel free to add yours if you like.
I don't think it's worth the trouble to muck with the commit history though.
On 10/29/07, Loui louipc.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I put those usernames in the AUTHORS file because I didn't know what people's full names and emails were. Also, some people might not want their full name in it. Feel free to add yours if you like.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Loui wrote:
I don't think it's worth the trouble to muck with the commit history though.
On 10/29/07, Loui louipc.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I put those usernames in the AUTHORS file because I didn't know what people's full names and emails were. Also, some people might not want their full name in it. Feel free to add yours if you like.
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
-S
Simo Leone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Loui wrote:
I don't think it's worth the trouble to muck with the commit history though.
On 10/29/07, Loui louipc.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I put those usernames in the AUTHORS file because I didn't know what people's full names and emails were. Also, some people might not want their full name in it. Feel free to add yours if you like.
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
Feel free to rebuild if you want, so long as it doesn't break the repo. Will we need to reclone in all places, or will a pull get the fixes?
I admit I don't know enough about how GIT does all its metadata storage to know how it will react to such things being changed.
- P
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 05:29:39AM -0400, Paul Mattal wrote:
Simo Leone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Loui wrote:
I don't think it's worth the trouble to muck with the commit history though.
On 10/29/07, Loui louipc.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I put those usernames in the AUTHORS file because I didn't know what people's full names and emails were. Also, some people might not want their full name in it. Feel free to add yours if you like.
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
Feel free to rebuild if you want, so long as it doesn't break the repo. Will we need to reclone in all places, or will a pull get the fixes?
That all depends on your definition of "break". Any clone you have so far won't work. You'll have to reclone and reapply any non-accepted patches before continuing.
Jason
On 10/30/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
No I don't see the point.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
Thinking objectively I do disagree with this. I don't mind publishing my own name but other contributors might. What is your reasoning behind this requirement?
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
It's not worth breaking existing clones to 'paint the bikeshed' as they say with full names. It's just busy work. Attention is better spent actually developing the AUR code rather than worrying about not being able to see a contributor's full name. The AUTHORS file is a great way to link those usernames with full names and emails if those contributors wish to disclose that information.
Cheers!
Loui wrote:
On 10/30/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
No I don't see the point.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
Thinking objectively I do disagree with this. I don't mind publishing my own name but other contributors might. What is your reasoning behind this requirement?
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
It's not worth breaking existing clones to 'paint the bikeshed' as they say with full names. It's just busy work. Attention is better spent actually developing the AUR code rather than worrying about not being able to see a contributor's full name. The AUTHORS file is a great way to link those usernames with full names and emails if those contributors wish to disclose that information.
Cheers!
Personally I'm against having my full name all over the internet, which is why I stick to just this nick and this email. If you absolutely insist on using full names then please use someone else's name on my patches (I have no objection to that, I'll willfully sign then over in the spirit of FOSS). If you still insist on using full names from now on, let me know, I won't waste time writing patches.
Greets.
- tardo
2007/10/31, tardo tardo@nagi-fanboi.net:
Loui wrote:
On 10/30/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
No I don't see the point.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
Thinking objectively I do disagree with this. I don't mind publishing my own name but other contributors might. What is your reasoning behind this requirement?
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
It's not worth breaking existing clones to 'paint the bikeshed' as they say with full names. It's just busy work. Attention is better spent actually developing the AUR code rather than worrying about not being able to see a contributor's full name. The AUTHORS file is a great way to link those usernames with full names and emails if those contributors wish to disclose that information.
Cheers!
Personally I'm against having my full name all over the internet, which is why I stick to just this nick and this email. If you absolutely insist on using full names then please use someone else's name on my patches (I have no objection to that, I'll willfully sign then over in the spirit of FOSS). If you still insist on using full names from now on, let me know, I won't waste time writing patches.
I don't see much sense in this. We and Google already know your name. Hint: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#tardo ;-)
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:52:02AM -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
Ok, you don't seem to get it.
If someone doesn't want their full name on their commit, that's tough. From here on out, no more patches without full names on them. If you disagree with this, my delete key is far from worn out...
As for the history, there isn't a single other project on projects.archlinux.org that does not use full names. We've gone through the effort of rebuilding history using full names for every other project we've put up. There is no reason the AUR should be an exception.
Ok, perhaps I need to put my foot in my mouth and explain where I'm coming from with this. There are a number of reasons I'd like to see full names on patches instead of just nicknames. These include: - Simply looking more professional. - Not offending anyone. ie: who wants patches from say, "PenisFace1000" - This is what other Arch-related projects are doing (see pacman for a good example)
Now, that said. Alright I'm sure there are people out there who don't want their names flying around the net. That's cool and all, but I'd really heavily prefer to use real names. If it's really really an issue for you, fine, submit patches under whatever non-offensive alias.
-S
Simo Leone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 05:26:15PM -0700, eliott wrote:
On 10/29/07, Simo Leone simo@archlinux.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
On the same train of thought: I'd like to fix the older commits with just usernames on them. Problem being this will wreck the history since it'd change the sha sums of all the commits.
Same goes for the AUTHORS file...
Would anyone be terribly averse to this? It just looks better..
Not sure what you are envisioning as far as changes go. Are you thinking of changing people's names?
Just to the extent of completing version history. That is, replacing usernames with "$name <$email>", like normal git commits.
One small point.. what email will you choose? If we're trying to make history more accurate, each commit should have the email that would have been relevant at the time. This is starting to sound like a lot of trouble for not much gain.
In some ways it seems more accurate to keep just the username, since that's all that subversion provided back in the day when that history was created.
- P
Simo Leone wrote:
I deleted the "origin" branch, as this doesn't belong in a repo such as this one (and it was a subset of master anyway, no loss).
Just a heads up.
Also, I'm wondering about what the different branches in there are intended for. There are master, testing, and stable. Most git projects are set up where master is what would be considered 'stable', that's why I'm wondering.
I'm assuming you're talking about the AUR git repo. There's a lot of GIT repos on archlinux.org!
Full scheme was announced:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/2007-September/000536.html
Given that a tag always exists in the history for releases, stable probably isn't really needed. I'll consider phasing it out with the next major AUR release.
- P
arch-projects@lists.archlinux.org