[CentOS-devel] kickstart extra minimal

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:56 AM, PatrickD Garvey
> <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Tastes, and workflow, vary tremendously. It's not usually feasible to
> keep track of *all* the forks, because remote developers can make
> forks of each other forks, with no record of what the other forks are.
> And it's not usually a "push" mechanism to transimit code to other
> repositories: usually it's a "notify the other user, and give them a
> target to pull from at their leisure".
>
>>> 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.
>
> It can be automated, but that can be.... adventuresome of both are
> considered "writable" repositories for non-automated procedures.
>
>> 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.
>
> Github is my friend for many projects. What it lacks is free "private
> group" repositories, like "bitbucket" has.

Thanks, Nico.

It definitely sounds like I need to actually use git to come to a full
understanding of how it can be used and how I will endeavor to use it.