Changes to our Git infrastructure

argonel argonel at
Mon Dec 29 16:03:25 GMT 2014

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Ben Cooksley <bcooksley at> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Based on the current feedback:
> 1) It seems people see no use in clone repositories.

Personal clones are for forks. If you can't get a patch set accepted by
"upstream", its equally unlikely that "upstream" are going to let you put a
private branch in their repo for sharing that patch set. I'm sure I'm not
the only one carrying patches that are arguably sharable but not

I've also used clones to share an experiment that may not belong in the
proper repo now or ever. Making everyone who uses the main repo "pay" to
carry an experimental branch is somewhat unfriendly, especially if you're
not normally involved with the project. You may also wish to avoid the
scrutiny of the others involved in the main project until you're ready,
which the sudden appearance of a new branch during checkout would certainly

2) Little commentary has been made on the merits of scratch
> repositories, with some dismissing them as pointless.
As I see it, scratch repos are the first stage in a project's life cycle.
Before playground, you might fiddle with something, drop it in a scratch
repo and share the link on IRC. Deleting it is painless when you discover
that your idea is terrible, or already exists elsewhere.

Therefore sysadmin proposes that both clone and scratch repositories
> be eliminated as a concept with the next iteration of our Git
> infrastructure.
> We've now begun the process of shortlisting candidate software for
> evaluation, so those who haven't yet responded are urged to do so
> soon.
There are probably still quite a few people away for the holiday season,
perhaps this decision can be deferred for a couple of weeks until its more
likely that everyone is back and paying attention?

> Thanks,
> Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list