I don't mind either way.
If I'm going the git path then I will need Mark to get a login for me on
oss.sgi.com.
For all sorts of reasons this would be easier for me if it was "kenj"
rather than the old sgi "kenmcd" login.
Mark, over to you.
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 13:48 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:38 +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:12 +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 09:38 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > > Probably best if you re-activate your account on oss.sgi.com,
> > > unless you have a local server you can use for exporting your
> > > git tree to the world?
> >
> > You can just post the patch to the list for review if you want, and
> > if accepted, Jonathan will push it back out to the 'dev' branch at
> > git://oss.sgi.com/pcp/pcp.git
>
> For someone working regularly, this model ends up pushing
> alot of extra work onto other individuals, instead of
> spreading the load - this is happening already with just
> Jonathan & I regularly doing git work (eg. domain numbers,
> pcpweb updates, etc) ... it would be better for someone
> with Kens background to be using git too IMO.
>
> > I can get oss accounts created if needed, but I'm wondering if
> > we could maybe have a semi-open-access 'incoming' repository or
> > something for those without a net visible server ..? Or will simply
> > mailing patches to pcp@oss suffice?
>
> For most people I think that'd be fine, but for someone
> with lots of history & high levels of trust from everyone
> working on PCP already, it'd be better to go the git route.
>
> cheers.
>
> --
> Nathan
>
|