New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fork from wordpress/wordpress #2

Closed
mikaelmattsson opened this Issue Aug 15, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@mikaelmattsson

Why isn't this just a fork from the wordpress git repo here on github? Wouldn't that look better? Or is this a way to boost your own account activity?

@johnpbloch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@johnpbloch

johnpbloch Aug 15, 2014

Owner

When I created this fork, that repo wasn't officially supported and the way it did branches and tags was incompatible with how packagist expects those to be set up. I haven't really had time to see if the latter reason has changed since they made it the official mirror of the main dev repo, but it's certainly something to look into. It would be much easier to maintain this repo as a fork from the main repo.

Owner

johnpbloch commented Aug 15, 2014

When I created this fork, that repo wasn't officially supported and the way it did branches and tags was incompatible with how packagist expects those to be set up. I haven't really had time to see if the latter reason has changed since they made it the official mirror of the main dev repo, but it's certainly something to look into. It would be much easier to maintain this repo as a fork from the main repo.

@johnpbloch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@johnpbloch

johnpbloch Aug 15, 2014

Owner

The branches are still in a format that is mostly unusable by packagist as-is, which means every single branch would have to have the version defined in the composer.json in its branch. They do this to get around collisions between branches and the first stable release of that branch (3.9 as a branch name would collide with the 3.9 tag). We could go through and rename all branches and rename all initial tags to include a trailing .0 (e.g. 3.9.0), which would kind of make the repo a little bit more forward-compatible, but it would still require manual intervention every time there's a major release (or a pretty smart automated script).

As I mentioned earlier, time is a major constraint on me here, so this is going to be a future task with no promise of timeline.

Owner

johnpbloch commented Aug 15, 2014

The branches are still in a format that is mostly unusable by packagist as-is, which means every single branch would have to have the version defined in the composer.json in its branch. They do this to get around collisions between branches and the first stable release of that branch (3.9 as a branch name would collide with the 3.9 tag). We could go through and rename all branches and rename all initial tags to include a trailing .0 (e.g. 3.9.0), which would kind of make the repo a little bit more forward-compatible, but it would still require manual intervention every time there's a major release (or a pretty smart automated script).

As I mentioned earlier, time is a major constraint on me here, so this is going to be a future task with no promise of timeline.

@pdewouters

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdewouters

pdewouters Oct 18, 2014

That repo (WordPress/WordPress) doesn't seem to always be up to date anymore. I think the official git mirror is git://core.git.wordpress.org/

That repo (WordPress/WordPress) doesn't seem to always be up to date anymore. I think the official git mirror is git://core.git.wordpress.org/

@johnpbloch johnpbloch closed this Jan 3, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment