Compiz community branch hosting?

[Guest]

I'm not complaining (well I am a bit) but it doesn't seem david is getting very far setting up a compiz community branch. so I was wondering what everyone would think if we setup it up on launchpad.net?

I've just started using it with compiz-settings (thanks amaranth) and I'm quite impressed. It's got a built in bug tracker (malone), translation manager (rosetta) and version tracker (bazaar), we can easily setup a team where multiple people can get commit access and we don't have to worry about hosting issues etc.

[mikedee]

We really need a git repository so that we can sync easily with core. A bug tracker would be a good idea though.

As far as I know people are trying to set up a git server but git is new and knowledge is limited :)

[mikedee]

Freedesktop hosting is also another possibility, there was a suggestion from Mattias on the mailing list.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/2006-December/001003.html

Hosting the code here would make things easier to merge into the main tree and David would probably see the code more.

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/

I like the idea of using the free services but the problem is that the bug tracker etc will not be branded properly so users who want to report a bug will be taken to a different site which might confuse them.

[imnotpc]

I'm trying to help David get git (that's funny) working on the compiz site now, but as mikedee says git isn't widely used yet and there isn't a lot of info or experience out there to draw on. I'm working on a demo on one of my servers. http://www.loudoun-fairfax.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi. Once I figure it out I'll duplicate it on the compiz server.

[wfarr]

It'd be great to not only have a git setup for Compiz, but to also work on scripts like the one for Beryl SVN to compile git daily and package it for distros. A lot of Beryl users enjoy the ability to keep bleeding edge with everything, and I doubt most of our fellow Compiz users are any different. :)

[imnotpc]

Once I get it working it's not hard to create new projects and we can divide them up any way we want. The problem I'm having is getting the whole thing to work over the web.

gitweb provides full-fledged web interface for Git repositories. (gitweb is now part of the core Git distribution. Installation is straightforward - take the gitweb/ directory and make it accessible on the web at a place with CGIs enabled. Then just tweak the configuration at the top of the gitweb/gitweb.cgi script.)

That my friends is the extent of the documentation for the web interface. Even Google hasn't helped. I have the basic web interface and repos up, but uploading and downloading is completely undocumented and may take me awhile to figure out.

[cyberorg]

Community source repository -> compiz-quinn -> rest is a history.

Hope that is not where we are heading with this.

[stjepan]

Yes, we should only make 3rd party plugins and patches, not make a new branch because that would result in the "beryl story".

[mikedee]

Don't worry, there are many reasons why nobody could create an illegitimate fork again. As far as I can see the fork only happened because Quinn DIDNT have a community branch. If she had a git repository from day 1 then David could have merged any changes easily.

In my opinion beryl was more about forking the community than about the code.

Nobody could fork compiz now without good reason because all the non-fork rules apply.

In fact I personally ENCOURAGE people to create forks in their community branch. If they are really good the changes will be merged back into compiz, if they are useless then they will be ignored. This means we can work on experimental features, the problem is that nobody as far as I know has an idea good enough to fork and not be ignored.

[stjepan]

Ok, it's fine then. Voted yes :)

stjepan