[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 483: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4780: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4782: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4783: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4784: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
PCGen • View topic - Move to GitHub
Board index

PCGen


IT IS ALIVE!!!

Move to GitHub

Where PCGen Program (JAVA) is discussed by the developers

Move to GitHub

Postby karianna » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:31 pm

GitHub is the social coding awesome, we should move primary development there, thoughts?
User avatar
karianna
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:18 pm



Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:43 pm

Further note: I believe this model aptly demonstrates a good working model for workflow: the author does a good job of explaining each "branch" and naming conventions.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby karianna » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:12 pm

Pretty much any developer (Java or no) should be familiar now with Git and GitHub - it's the lingua franca of collaborative software these days (rightly or wrongly). I think that with the LST files people can just continue to use local diff tools (GitHub's UI for wide files is poor).
User avatar
karianna
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:27 pm
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:03 pm

Yes, but our developers aren't all GIT savvy or currently on GITHUB yet. That was one of the main reasons we didn't migrate to GIT or GITHUB initially.

Back then, only Henk was proficient with GIT and handled the mirroring on github for us. Since that time, James and myself are now GIT proficient. While Tom, Stefan and any other active monkeys would need to be brought up to speed.

I think Henk's concern was LST file merges. If PrettyLST is used, then it becomes harder for github to handle the PR merging for them, and would be another hurdle to overcome. I don't know, I haven't had to deal with that personally.

With the move to JAVA 7, I think now would be a great time to migrate to GITHUB. It's a fresh cycle, and with the traditional break after a release, a perfect time to get everyone familiar with the process, and set up before we swing into action.

Cheers,


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby karianna » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:10 pm

I'd need to look at the merge issue with the long lines, that might be a problem yes. Git and GitHub I can give a webinar on to teach folks.
User avatar
karianna
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:27 pm
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:23 pm

Hey Kar,

I think we should just send our folks here:

That slideshow should cover the basics of what we're trying to accomplish in GIT. :P

Though, I'd be interested in seeing a Webinar from you.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby karianna » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:08 pm

Yeah, the thing that catches most people out is that GitHub != Git. Git has no concept of the Pull Request model, once you get people understanding that subtle split it's actually fine (diagrams!). Once they install the hub command line tool, it gets even better.
User avatar
karianna
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:27 pm
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:20 pm

I prefer the Tortoisexxx context menu tools, with the number of files I work with, having the commands integrated is handy, plus it integrates into my primary editor. Though I should start getting my git commands down by heart.

The biggest difference would be making a branch for each feature/issue. Cleaner method to know what all was addressed. Squashing and Rebasing are handy. The fact you can test the changes in the branch safely is even better.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby jamesd » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:45 am

I've been working intensively using the feature branch/pull-request model in git for a while now and it is a great approach. The ability in GitHub to fork and submit a pull request is great and makes it very easy to contribute to a project. So I'm quite comfortable now with a move to GitHub. We just have to make sure all our history is preserved.

Another consideration is our project structure. Git is geared around small contained projects. We have a main project but some other sibling folders (e.g. NFD). I think these should each be a repository under the pcgen project.

Cheers,
James.
User avatar
jamesd
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:33 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:07 am

Yeah, NFD is it's own special branch. I'm fine with it being it's own separate repo. I'm pretty sure the full history is present on github right now. We can ping Henk about it.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:10 am

Hey all!

Chiming in after I heard all things Git were being discussed here.

I have a shell account that does the sync from SVN to Github automatically, but the reverse needs to be done manually. I just got Andrew up to speed today and he's been merging PRs as if he's been feeding Orio's to a toddler (believe me, they go down well).

So if there are any Git experts out there that feel like chiming in, please step forward. There will be conflicts that need to be resolved. Especially because the sync entails git push --force to Github which can frag mergeability of PRs.

Best,

Henk
User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:28 am

So the topic of having all objects described on a single line is actually not very much related to Git. It is related to merging.


Conflicts in edits on objects are hard to fix

For example, say I want to fix a couple of lines in the new Pathfinder Advanded Class Guide that Mark Means has been coding on a lot lately. I work on it for an hour, then try to commit to SVN. The commit fails, because Mark has changed the same line.

This is fine if the fix is small. This is not fine when the fix was 200 lines. So now I have the options of starting over. Or trying to resolve the conflicts. Well, you'll probably start over.

So trying to solve the problem entails scanning long lines for the delta, then interpreting it, etc. That is hard work that takes a lot of time of people that could have solved more problems in the same sparse time they have for PCGen.


Conflicts in edits on objects can disappear or be easy to solve

Of we move to multi-line objects, that problem will 1) occur less 2) be easier to solve:

1) It will occur less, because svn or git know how to automatically merge things that are problematic in SVN like a) adding two key to the same object (just adds two lines, instead of the modifying same line twice), b) removing two keys (removes two lines instead of modifying the same line twice), c) changing two key (changes two lines instead of modifying... you get the picture).
2) If there are conflicts, you will instantly see the changes and the conflicts on their own line instead of the whole object-line.

It is actually surprising to me that noone brings this problem up, ever. That means that either people are okey with it. Or they never encounter this problem, maybe because different people always edit different files, etc.


What does it have to do with git?

Now why does this come up during the Git discussion?

1) Partly because I brought these up one after the other. I think that multi-line objects would be an improvement for our SVN workflow anyway.
2) We will be merging MUCH more often when using Git. Look at the release strategy Andrew has top-of-mind. We could do all sorts of cool stuff that are hard to do in SVN. Like just cherry-picking a patch to the 6.2 branch. Easy, but not with multi-line objects.
User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:44 am

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby Nylanfs » Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:42 am

When editing a large set like the rsrd or pathfinder having an object on one line and then having all the same tags line up are fairly important to me.


Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
PCGen BoD - PR Silverback
ICQ: 14397299
Forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)
User avatar
Nylanfs
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Elkhart, Indiana, United States
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:34 pm

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:00 pm



Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby Nylanfs » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:05 pm

Jedit


Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
PCGen BoD - PR Silverback
ICQ: 14397299
Forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)
User avatar
Nylanfs
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Elkhart, Indiana, United States
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:38 pm



Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:11 pm

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:45 pm

Just making sure.

I'm pretty sure Tom Parker is hard set against making multi-line a normal. He was aghast when he discovered it was an added feature.

I don't know where James stands on the issue.
Me, I understand the principles, it does make human review on github easier, but on the flip side our files go vertical. Also, which file types is this multi-line going to apply too? Class, Templates, Abilities/Feats, Kits, etc.?

I'm also not keen on having to convert back and forth. I use Multi-line when I'm first setting up objects. Especially things like Spells, so you can catch non-caught issues in a find/replace system.

But for every day use, I'm not sure I want to be hunting for bugs in the multi-line environment.

I guess it's a matter of preference and use.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:00 am

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby Nylanfs » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Hmm I kind of disagree. If working on a small source having multi isn't bad. But the standard for going into repo is single line. Which can be part of the data review process.


Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
PCGen BoD - PR Silverback
ICQ: 14397299
Forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)
User avatar
Nylanfs
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Elkhart, Indiana, United States
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby jamesd » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:45 pm

Henk, I agree with your dot points, particularly the first but I think your conclusion is contentious and is really off topic for this thread :) It would make a good topic of its own though.

Cheers,
James.
User avatar
jamesd
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:33 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:06 am

Okey, sorry about that. Not trying to provoke any reponse. It is just, that I'm trying to systematically discuss concerns Andrew voiced for me. Since they were my concerns anyway, I thought I would conclude that they were sufficiently addressed. But reading the thread now, I see I've hijacked the thread a bit.

Let's remove that latest post and let me state that I think we do not need multi-line support and that I feel we can solve any problems when we encounter them.

The same for prettlylist. We'll be fine.



A more on-topic subject though would be that the repository is currently 244 MB, which is considerable. We've had complaints that downloading PCGen through Git takes too long, especially from people new to git, who sometimes foobar their repo and need to download things over when they are unable to rebase.

A second problem with git related to size is that SVN allows a checkout of a subdir. Git does not allow this, forcing you to download the entire repo when you would only hack on NFD.

We could split the repositories, which would help, but there are some hard-to-solve problems:

I've tried to reduce the repository size in the past and it is hard. A few causes of repo size:

[list=]
[*] Git, being a distributed system, downloads all revisions from the first to the last, including all branches. SVN, being centralized, downloads only the latest revision and fetches earlier revisions on demand. This is not something we can solve.
[*] When renaming files, often people have (instead of using SVN move or git mv) used their file manager to move them, then added the new, removed the old. Especially with mass file renaming, this effectively doubles the repo size. With the next mass rename, it has trippled, etc.
[*] Subversion to Git conversion is not perfect. In a pure-git repository, all branches stem from other commits in the master branch. This branch then only contains the delta of the branch to master and stays relatively small. In the Git conversion, branches are not always well-detected and sometimes contain the entire content of the master branch again.
[*] We have years and years of awesome releases in the repo, which we want to keep. Fact of life.
[/list]

So if the repo size is a problem, there are a couple of hard-to-solve technical problems in reducing size.

Splitting the repo is, IMHO, a good idea. This also allows us to set up CI jobs that specifically test certain things for certain repositories. It will allow us to run those tests when specific repo triggers are fired. Jenkins can also trigger tests based on file patterns, but splitting the repo's is much cleaner.

It is also safer: we could delegate merging and commiting to master in groups. So the website team could manage it's own members and adopt its own work- and QA-flow.

Things that come to mind are simply the directories in the root of the project

[list=]
[*] website
[*] NFD
[*] arch docs
[*] pcgen
[*] utiltities
[/list]

The IDE dir could be moved to the new pcgen repo.

Where we would mostly gain size reduction by splitting would be inside the pcgen-proper repo. However, the best candidates are code and data. I would not recommend to split these dirs, because they are so tightly linked in functionality. (Data depending on code, mostly).
User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:28 am

Only issue with the split proposed is this:
Web is just a holding repo for changes, it's not a very active directory - it's the SF web pages.

I have no idea what 'Arch Docs' is, nor do I believe it's used.

A split that is the most logical is these three:

[list=]
[*]Content
[*]PCGen - proper (All our IDEs are geared to use this)
[*]Utilities
[/list]

Content - includes NFD, our publisher docs, and our OOC materials.
PCGen - is the main program and should not be split up
Utilities - is our holding tank for practical aids to coding.

This actually makes the projects make sense, since now a whole check-out of pcgen is the main program. Which as you stated, we couldn't drill down with GIT anyways.

I think IDE should be part of Utilities in this model. Not sure about those Arch Docs.


I would also point out, whenever it's been possible, I have used the MOVE feature, and the RENAME feature. SVN has messed up and caused me to use the alternatives, but that has been the exception rather than the rule.

Cheers,


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:38 am

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:39 am

Last edited by henkslaaf on Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:47 am

User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:40 pm

If you want to set up mirrors, go for it.

Active developers we should get the proper mapping. Inactive, well, if they are inactive by definition not participating. We can do an all-call request for svn > github user name, but that is the best you can do.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby henkslaaf » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:57 am

So I've started the process of mirroring content, website and utilitites.

This brought up the question of branches.

Do we need to process the branches for these subrepositories? Looking at them, they make most sense for the pcgen/ dir, the website does not release alongside of the main program, nor do the utilities or the NFD content.

I'm inclined to not process any branches for these split-offs.

Thoughts?
User avatar
henkslaaf
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:00 am
Top

Re: Move to GitHub

Postby LegacyKing » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:18 pm

No, branching isn't required for the sub repo's. Branching isn't used for those.


Andrew Maitland
PCGen Content SB
- Data Chimp
- Quicksilver Tracker Monkey
User avatar
LegacyKing
Site Admin
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 pm
Location: California, US
Top


Return to Developers - Code Monkeys

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest