[sword-devel] Architecture and DVCS - was : Re: Project "Free Scriptures" started
kostyamaslyuk at gmail.com
Thu Feb 27 03:31:02 MST 2014
I do not want to blame anyone. About deficiencies we shall speak calmly,
expecting calmly constructive relationship. As long as we can not to hear
each other i see no other way but to talk about one but in different words.
For now whole development process is dependent on two people who have spare
time to dedicate it to project much less then necessary (i m always
thankful to both for bringing theirs efforts to this project). But
community want movement and new features. If we could rebuild some process
in development pipeline, it would be good. Official DVCS repo would be good
as users would have organized collaboration without will of
27.02.2014 1:33 пользователь "Greg Hellings" <greg.hellings �� gmail.com>
> I'm beginning to wonder if this conversation is going anywhere. Troy has
> already stated he doesn't want to use git because:
> 1) He doesn't think there is a clear winner in the FOSS camp among DVCS
> options [true a few years ago, but not true anymore].
> 2) He doesn't find it to have any killer features [Yet people keep trying
> to tell him about killer features, despite his statement that he has used
> and continues to use it in multiple scenarios, and he is aware of its
> features. Piling yet-more of the well-known and well publicized features
> isn't going to change his mind. He already knows how to use git and doesn't
> think its features are worth the effort for Sword.]
> 3) He doesn't believe it's holding back peoples' contributions [despite at
> least three examples in these threads to the contrary]
> Really, it just boils down to, "Troy doesn't want to move Sword to git."
> So we can keep throwing all the features, functionality, or claims we want
> at him, but until his gut instinct changes nothing related to Sword and git
> will change.
Your argument about gut instinct does not make sense for me. Project is in
stagnation stage. Many good changes i made was started from my undesire to
do them, i have spent a lot of time in delays and then implement them with
a good result.
We can not see far opportunities just before we made a step in that
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Jaak Ristioja <jaak �� ristioja.ee> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Another word to clarify some stuff said too enthusiastically about git
>> which might otherwise give a wrong impression:
>> 1) For rewriting history (removing big files etc) one must have
>> sufficient access to the copy of the repository to be rewritten. Users
>> who have already cloned your repository will still have a copy of the
>> old history. Additionally if you rewrite history so that the SHA1
>> hashes of you branches change users most likely get an error next time
>> they pull. So history-rewriting changes must usually be coordinated.
>> For some stuff there are workarounds thou (e.g. a .mailmap file).
>> 2) Pull requests are not a feature of git, but a feature of portals
>> hosting git, e.g. GitHub, Gitorious etc. So you don't get pull
>> requests automatically when you host git yourself (unless maybe one
>> uses GitLab or self-hosted Gitorious).
>> 3) There is no automatic per-directory/file level repository
>> permissions support in Git. One either has read-write/read-only or no
>> access to the whole repository. It is probably possible to deny
>> certain write access on the server side using git hooks, but it
>> requires some programming. Afaik GitHub, Gitorious etc don't allow
>> such hooks to be set up by users.
>> But then again: Do we need such permissions or do we trust developers?
>> The core developers can still correct each other when they mess up. I
>> see no need for such permissions for Sword. If there's someone you
>> don't trust, don't give them write access and let them file a pull
>> requests instead, which can safely be reviewed before pulling them
>> into the main repository.
>> PS: When BibleTime switched to git we chose Gitorious over GitHub
>> because of the Terms of Service of GitHub at that time which were
>> unacceptable for me. But afaik they've changed their terms by now.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel �� crosswire.org
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel �� crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
----------- ???????? ????? -----------
???????? ? ??????? HTML ???? ?????????…
More information about the sword-devel