X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 20:00:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] back annotation - phase 2, call for contributors
In-Reply-To: <201509011746.t81Hk2SJ019528@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1509011956440.6924@igor2priv>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509010447310 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <CAM2RGhRxevpXzeQpOV-OMtRhofjeSQxMkr0iFsutZ0a2EX9rcQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509010743560 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <CAM2RGhSs=o0OT9AcWp9rfd=MRRxT3r5uyDa6VBcT66fXkEituw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <55E5A6BA DOT 4030606 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201509011657 DOT t81Gve9d017777 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509011913530 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <201509011718 DOT t81HIR58018562 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509011933380 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
 <201509011746 DOT t81Hk2SJ019528 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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



On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:

>
>> 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.

Honestly, github and local git repo is not what I was considering. I am 
trying to decide between "svn and I do the stuff without having to worry" 
and "git, let a contributor do it and hope it will get merged".

Thus I really need to get some feedback from the maintainers on the last 
part.