GitHub

[Ian Monroe]

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jeff Mitchell
<kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com> wrote:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>> No one in #amarok.dev knew that. :)
>
> The fact that people didn't remember the URL, and didn't look it up in
> the email or look in their git remotes doesn't make it a problem with
> the server.
>
>> Everything I tried was password protected.
>
> I don't know what you tried, but it's only password protected if you try
> to push to it.  It's using Apache LIMIT directives in conjunction with
> DAV, and GETs are not affected.
>
> Whatever you were doing must have been really funky.  I just tried it
> out now and it worked perfectly fine for me.
>
>> So a contributor really can't push back into the central hub, so we'd
>> be stuck all using the same account?
>
> Yes.  When you clone your git repo that is a fork of the original,
> you're doing an indirect cone, and you don't get the proper refs set up
> so that you can push directly.  So you have to also have the main amarok
> remotes/branches to push to, which makes having your own fork a moot
> point anyways.  So if we were to use it, we'd all need to just use one
> account (but it would keep us separate through email addresses).
>
> See the other parts of this thread for much more detail.

So if you're not working on a feature branch, why would you make your
own fork? Its impossible to clone the original?

>> It has a nice GUI to a standard git repo as far as I can tell.
>
> It's not too different, functionally, from gitweb.
>

What you just described sounds functionally very different from gitweb
(which doesn't have any backend account handling at all of course).

Ian