On 11/8/12 Nov 8 -1:31 AM, Henrik Hjelte wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info

> <mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info>> wrote:
>
> Note that I don't think that darcs, in and of itself, is a bad system.
> But there are more than enough DCVSes out there, and we can use one less
> of them.
>
>
> I think it is a good idea, it crossed my mind too. Also github is a good
> environment for cooperating.
> I think the darcs repo should live for some time while we double-commit.
> If no one objects, I'll try to do it quite soon.

Sounds good. I have a preference for a canonical git repo at c-l.net,
although a pointer from the c-l.net web page to one on github would be
ok.

I read this mail after I did the git migration, but I did it like that.

The docs are still on common-lisp but mentions the github url.

What I'd like us to avoid is that mess where there are a dozen
github repos for the same library, and no one knows which one is
canonical.

I did a git-repo here: https://github.com/hankhero/cl-json

I am not sure it would add something to host it on common-lisp.net instead. Other such as hunchentoot seem to be on github.

And I think we should still provide tarballs.

If someone asks on the mailing-list or me directly for a tarball, then I can do them. But does anyone use them?

I don't really get github's additional structure on top of vanilla git
usage, and am not that excited about learning it.

I think it will stimulate more patches, even from people that don't take their time or wish to send patches for various reasons. I think a lot of people think it is easier to ask for a pull-request. It is just a guess though.

But I would be happy
to continue to submit patches in the old school way, through 'git email'.

Well that's great!

Best wishes, Henrik