5 ms·
Personally, I'm not "bailing" from anywhere. I am however using this as an opportunity to rely on any one single place less. I'm in the process of mirroring m
by Klathmon 8y ago
Personally, I'm not "bailing" from anywhere.
I am however using this as an opportunity to rely on any one single place less.
I'm in the process of mirroring my git repos on GitLab, and trying to think of a way to signify that both the GitHub and GitLab repos are "canonical", and that issues/PRs/contributions can happen at both.
- VectorLock 8y agoSounds like that would be a pain having that kind of work done in two places.
- mathgeek 8y agoWhich is rather unfortunate for something that all revolves around git.
- chrisweekly 8y agoI do not think the word "canonical" means what you think it means.
- Klathmon 8y ago> accepted as being accurate and authoritative. > synonyms: recognized, authoritative, authorized, accepted, sanctioned That's what I meant for it to mean anyway...
- chrisweekly 8y agoIn software the "authoritative" aspect of the definition is crucial. How can two different endpoints both be authoritative? What happens if they differ?
- Klathmon 8y agoThen people will be confused, which is why I'm exploring options to ensure they stay in-sync.
- chrisweekly 8y agoI'd recommend simply designating one as master, one as slave. Why try to appoint two captains of one ship?
- Klathmon 8y agoBecause having one as master and one as slave is exactly the problem i'm trying to solve here. I want both to be master, so that users who are comfortable on both platforms are willing to make contributions to the codebase, so that any one service/system going down won't stop development, and so that as the "community" migrates around different platforms they can always find the full version of the software. Recommending simplifying a process to the point that it no longer solves the problem it's trying to solve isn't helpful.
- chrisweekly 8y agoSorry if my comments haven't been helpful. But I don't think the problem you're trying to solve is tractable. I'd be very interested to hear of a solution that doesn't rely on locking and is immune to conflicts. You might fake it (and meet your stated goals) by maintaining a true master behind the scenes and syncing to two public slaves... (ie, forks you treat as peers, each with a "master" branch) but that still leaves neither of them truly "canonical" -- a designation of authority that would apply to the place where you'd resolve conflicts given simultaneous commits.