[Nitro] Revisiting some Og issues again: RFC

Mark Van De Vyver mvyver at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 18:20:10 EST 2007

Hi Devs,

On Nov 29, 2007 3:22 PM, Trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:37 pm, "Judson Lester" <nya... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I very much want to see Og as a separate project.  I think it's a very
> > useful library, with a excellent philosophic basis.  I remain eager to
> > commit to it's development, specs and doc.  On the other hand, I candidly
> > have little interest in Nitro, and Og's coupling with Nitro both frustrates
> > and distances me.  I do thank the Nitro project for engendering in me a keen
> > dislike for Darcs though.
> >
> > I realize that I've contributed only a little to Og, and it was a long time
> > ago, but I'm a little in love with it as a library, and I feel strongly
> > about it.
> >
> > So the idea then is that we have a central svn repo and we us git, via
> >
> > > svn-git, to work with it. I realize it's off the beaten track, but I
> > > think in the end it's probably the best all around solution.
> >
> > All that in mind, my thought is this: what does a hybrid svn/git SCM
> > solution get us?  Is it that difficult to set up a head git repo?  I'd argue
> > against using the Rubyforge Nitro SVN specifically because I'd prefer to see
> > Og take off as a separate project.
> >
> > I tentatively agree that it would be preferable not to create a complete
> > fork of Og as it stands, with regards to limited developer resources.  But I
> > wonder if there might be more potential devs for a standalone Og than there
> > are for Og-in-Nitro.
> I understand you're take here. It's different with SVN in that one
> repository can house many separate projects. For instance my ProUtils
> repo has a number of projects and the layout of the repo clearly
> demonstrates the fact:
>   proutils/svn/
>     box/
>       branches
>       tags
>       trunk
>     icli/
>       branches
>       tags
>       trunk
>     mint/
>       branches
>       tags
>       trunk
>     ...
> This is what I'd like to do with Nitro's repo and start thinking of
> Nitro as an umbrella repo which contains a number of separate projects
> instead of a project in itself. But this would mean that Raw would
> become more of what Nitro is considered today. Maybe that's not
> reasonable, but I was hoping to keep the all the Nitro projects under
> one "roof" while having independent dev tracks at the same time.
> The downside of a pure Git repo is that it would have to be hosted by
> a private system (no public "forges" I know of support git) and also

Some git hosting sites:

things seem to be moving in the world of git, so it has probably
changed and is not exhaustive:

I'm hoping code.google.com would move sooner than later, but perhaps
they are waiting for git under Windows to mature...

> anyone on Windows would not have access to the repo (maybe not that
> big a deal, but something to be considered nonetheless).

Well, if cygwin counts as "Windows" then you running git under windows
is officially supported.  A "Windows git" without cygwin maybe coming:


One can suggest people search on "WinGit" and "msysgit", or even
provide direct links?

Anyway, it seems there is a path so maybe this isn't a git showstopper?


> T.
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list