Re: [ITA] Git et al

[Adam Dinwoodie <adam at dinwoodie dot org>]

On 13 January 2014 21:32, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/11/2014 01:01 PM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
>> Our Git package hasn't been updated in a long time. Although its
>> maintainer, Eric Blake, has been on the mailing lists, I don't think
>> he's done any work in keeping Git up-to-date (including replying to a
>> number of requests for updates), so I'd like to offer to take over.
>
> While I'm not completely gone from cygwin, and while it is unusual for
> someone to forcefully take over a package while the current maintainer
> is still around,

When I first concocted this plan about six months ago, if memory serves,
you hadn't been active for a while.  You since have, and I should have
asked you before proposing myself.  Even if it works out with everyone
happy, I'm sorry for the rudeness.

> this is one case where I'm willing to give up my maintainership.
> There are some packages I still maintain (like coreutils) where there
> are cygwin-specific patches that I want to ensure still work across
> multiple cygwin versions and where I still actively maintain efforts
> for those projects upstream; but when it comes to git, I only
> originally volunteered for maintainer status because it built out of
> the box and was needed for my work on upstream coreutils, and I am not
> a very active upstream git contributor.

In honesty, I'm not sure how much time I'm going to be able to devote to
contributing upstream.  I've had a bit of a dig in the Git code, but
I've not actively pushed anything upstream yet.

> In short, git is a big enough project and my cygwin time limited
> enough that I have not been able to maintain it well, so I hope you
> can do a better job with keeping the cygwin port up-to-date.  That
> said, while I don't have as much time for cygwin packaging, I still DO
> plan on using git on cygwin, so I at least want to make sure my use
> cases still work when upgrading to the build you just provided before
> we actually upload it.
>
> It may still be a few days before I can test that your new packaging
> works for me (I'd welcome a review from anyone else as well), but the
> overall idea of adopting the package from me seems reasonable.

There's already a known, fairly major problem with my build, reported by
Steven Penny[0].  I'm hoping to get a fix to that out tomorrow evening.

[0]: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-01/msg00086.html

> I also wonder if you would be willing to adopt asciidoc, as the only
> reason I took that package was to build git documentation out-of-the-box
> (I have never personally used it except for building git).

I'd only be using it for Git as well, but assuming it builds
out-of-the-box, I don't see any reason why not.