I added an issue on GitHub about forking, which I know you've seen. It's not an easy problem but I think it would be a nice sign of respect to script authors to fork their repos instead of just mirroring flat files.
Agree 100% but there are some complexities... Some discussion on the GitHub issue: http://github.com/vim-scripts/vim-scraper/issues#issue/3
That introduces another interesting question. The mirroring of flat files has a nice side effect: you only get updates when a maintainer manually uploads a new version. Forking would mean that updates give you the bleeding-edge version, which might not be what you want. I'm not sure what to do in this case.
That's true. And tagging won't be as reliable. And what happens when the script author forces a push?
If an author wants his repo cloned instead of scraped, maybe he/she must agree in blood to keep the master branch stable, use tags, and never force.
If I wrote a small script to make/update a BitBucket mirror of each of the packages for us Mercurial users (using hg-git), would you be interested? If not, I might just write/maintain it myself. :)
I don't use mercurial much so I couldn't help write it. Still, I'm happy to include in vim-scripts and give you full ownership and the commit bit. Would that work?
- Scott
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
No comments:
Post a Comment