[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] polished git repo

From: Jordi Mallach
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] polished git repo
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:35:05 +0100

El dt 08 de 03 de 2016 a les 13:30 -0500, en/na Chris Allegretta va
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Benno Schulenberg
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The sooner the better.  And I'd like to start moving to gnulib,
> I think it makes sense to do what was previously discussed, put the
> gnulib changes into 2.5 and then once we have all the features we're
> going to need for awhile, brand that 2.6.
> > and to properly register Mike as the author of those patches,
> > we need git.
> Sorry, why is that?  We have AUTHORS for recognizing significant
> contributions to the codebase.  I thought Mike already had access to
> the repo; just made it so he does.

Well, it's the git way. In git there's author, reviewer, committer,
etc., so a big transition like this is nice to have using a more git-
like commit message that starts the real-git history.

I'm unsure we need to stitch the switch to git to a nice version
number. gnulib and git are both implementation details of nano, not
actual front-end, user oriented bits that are going to be noticed at
all in nano. In fact, after the gnulib change, nano will be mostly the
same binary, right? But I really don't care about that. I think it's
better to take advantage of Mike's work and go ahead with the switch to
git ASAP, now that we're in a good position to do it.

A few other comments:

Should we stop committing ChangeLog entries and get a ChangeLog
generated from git history?

We probably want to go over the website and repo docs that reference
SVN before the switch.


Jordi Mallach Pérez  --  Debian developer
address@hidden     address@hidden
GnuPG public key information available at

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]