From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git/gitweb.git repository Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4pifw45n.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <767502.77573.qm@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070901013159.GP1219@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Luben Tuikov , git@vger.kernel.org, jnareb@gmail.com To: Petr Baudis X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 01 03:46:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IRI3u-0004l8-Az for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:46:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750919AbXIABoc (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:44:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753528AbXIABob (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:44:31 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:46498 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753514AbXIABo3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:44:29 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D02129D6D; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:44:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070901013159.GP1219@pasky.or.cz> (Petr Baudis's message of "Sat, 1 Sep 2007 03:31:59 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis writes: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:25:16AM CEST, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Luben Tuikov wrote: >> >> > So what's the review process now? >> >> Umm. Pasky set it up, so it's Pasky who decides what goes in and what >> not. What exactly is your problem? > > Junio will pull from it, so he has full right to ask. :-) Well, I won't blindly pull from it, but honestly when it comes to gitweb I trust Pasky's judgement as much as I trust myself, if not even more. And I think the review process Pasky described is good --- people will see both the patches on the list and code in action at repo.or.cz/. I am a bit worried about the 'master' being a "StGIT stack", though. Playgrounds to be cherry-picked from (aka 'pu') would make *perfect* sense to be managed that way (and the topics that go only 'pu' of git.git itself are managed the same except that I do not do so using StGIT), but I think we need a stable history for the branch git.git will eventually pull from.