X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:46:02 -0400 Message-Id: <201509011746.t81Hk2SJ019528@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: (gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu) Subject: Re: [geda-user] back annotation - phase 2, call for contributors References: <55E5A6BA DOT 4030606 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201509011657 DOT t81Gve9d017777 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509011718 DOT t81HIR58018562 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Thanx, these were all clear to me. Having the stuff in mainline is one of > the local optimums. There are other local optimums, tho. And there are > suboptimal points that combine the drawbacks of different solutions, like > git + not having the stuff merged in mainline. > > Before I make my decision, I really want to see the chances of getting an > optimal solution vs. wasting time. This why I want to see, before I start > in any direction, whether my ideas are backed up by mainline maintainers. I won't try to argue against using a local repo for local work; that's kinda the whole point of git. My argument is that, given a choice between github and gedaproject for upstreaming geda-related stuff, you should choose gedaproject, even for stuff you know won't get mainlined. Why? A centralized location for "all things geda" makes it easy for others to find geda-related things.