From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22414 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2012 15:55:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 30922 Received: (qmail 10074 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2012 15:55:26 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <121220075509.ZM30659@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:55:09 -0800 In-reply-to: <22690.1356010707@thecus.kiddle.eu> Comments: In reply to Oliver Kiddle "Re: PATCH: document git in Etc/zsh-development-guide" (Dec 20, 2:38pm) References: <20121217085215.GA87227@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <20121217101536.6825d808@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20121217110035.GA89579@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <9514.1355752226@thecus.kiddle.eu> <20121218093618.GB11509@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <18174.1355925977@thecus.kiddle.eu> <20121220095731.GA20954@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <22690.1356010707@thecus.kiddle.eu> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PATCH: document git in Etc/zsh-development-guide MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 20, 2:38pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: } } Phil Pennock wrote: } > We also now have *two* git workflow sections, contradicting each other. } } We already had two contractory workflows and that, more so than the } sections, is what needs resolving. Unfortunately it is harder to } consolidate two contradictory workflows than to take one as a baseline } and discuss how it can be improved or where the interpretation of the } consensus from earlier discussion was wrong. See, this is exactly what I was hoping would NOT happen when I suggested that someone [*] summarize to the mailing list and everyone agree on the summary before we started committing changes to the development guide. I suppose one of the arguments for changing to git is that it makes this kind of thing easier to sort out, because commits can be shared/reviewed before being pushed to the master repository. Thank goodness PWS tagged CVS when the -test1 tarball was created. I'm half tempted to cvs-admin-o back to that revision so we can start over. [*] By which I imply someone who understands git thoroughly enough to comprehend/consolidate everything that was being suggested, for which I am not qualified. Incidentally, the IP address of zsh.cvs.sourceforge.net appears to have changed recently. Maybe whatever it was Phil meant about SourceForge having broken CVS, has been corrected now? (Not that this changes any plans.)