On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 01/15/2015 01:27 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 01/15/2015 01:38 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
The repository has been cloned to github for community use/improvement. If I made a couple minor changes and updated the README (along with wolfy) so please feel free to review/contribute to https://github.com/CentOS/Community-Kickstarts
- -- Jim Perrin
Please forgive the intrusion, but why https://github.com/CentOS/Community-Kickstarts and not https://git.CentOS.org/Community-Kickstarts ?
Because more people have github accounts than git.centos accounts. I'll look into mirroring between them.
-- Jim Perrin
Thank you.
I think I'll wait to ask more penetrating questions until after I've made use of git for a while. I just have some ideas based on sketchy information about git that duplicate files in the two have no added value.
Git (and other DVCS systems) takes a bit of a different mental approach than a traditional hub-and-spoke model. Each Git repo contains a complete history of all changes from each other repo, so the changes and history are distributed rather than centralized. In that case, it's all duplicates, from my local git checkout to each other checkout. Where we say e.g. git.centos.org is a central repository, that is more a convention we choose rather than a limitation (feature) of the Git software.
I think that paragraph confirms my suspicion that I need never move code from one git to another, but there is some mechanism by which the people using each notify their git about the other and code is shared across the gap semi-automatically. This is where I expect experience to inform me better than generous attempts to explain it ahead of time.
The reason for using GitHub is that it has become something akin to "social coding". It is now a normal behavior to fork a GitHub repo, make changes, and offer them back via a pull request. It's a very low barrier for people interested in offering subtle-to-big code changes, documentation changes, etc. (vs joining a mailing list to submit a patch.)
This seems to indicate there is some human-to-human communication cost to sharing across two git domain names. Again, I look to my future experience for a deeper understanding.
However, there is a risk to an open source project to put all the code in a closed source application as the central repository, e.g. putting all ones eggs in one basket. For this reason, the recommendation is to have the project's git repository be primary (canonical), and use GitHub for the ease-of-use, by mirroring changes back-and-forth between the two git repos.
I've seen indications there are some objections to using GitHub from some quarters. Are you saying GitHub is closed source? I had meant to investigate the rumblings for enlightenment. One only has so much time to learn the basic knowledge and I often defer the cultural knowledge investigations.
If there are legitimate concerns about using a tool outside the CentOS.org domain, it seems to me, the project needs to find a way to bridge the gap. I understand the reluctance to lose contributions from people outside the domain. I also understand the comfort levels generated by using what one has used successfully, especially mental models about how tools work behind the scenes.
Thank you, Karsten, for your time. I hope it has been beneficial to the CentOS project also.
http://bit.ly/TOSWOpenTooling [1]
... I've been pondering putting in a specific guideline that speaks to GitHub, but I prefer to keep the guidelines more generic than specific where possible.
Regards,
- Karsten
[1] Long URL:
http://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_loosely_organize_a_community#Use...
Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff