+1
Definitely better github link as users can start fork, pull requests etc...
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 at 2:20 am, Michael Osipov wrote:
> should stay at GitHub as it gives users the chance to comment on
> our work. Gitweb does not allow that. I consider Gitweb as something
> Apache-internal/referen
Am 2018-04-01 um 23:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
On Sun 1 Apr 2018 at 17:21, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2018-04-01 um 13:54 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
On Fri 30 Mar 2018 at 10:20, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2018-03-30 um 10:47 schrieb Basin Ilya:
Hi.
We need your opinion on the following topic
Am 2018-04-01 um 13:54 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
On Fri 30 Mar 2018 at 10:20, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2018-03-30 um 10:47 schrieb Basin Ilya:
Hi.
We need your opinion on the following topic. While Svn and Cvs providers
perform the list() operation remotely and don't need a checkout director
should stay at GitHub as it gives users the chance to comment on
our work. Gitweb does not allow that. I consider Gitweb as something
Apache-internal/reference.
Am 2018-04-01 um 18:03 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
do you really think it's an improvement for end users?
personally, I thought having b
do you really think it's an improvement for end users?
personally, I thought having both some GitBox and some GitHub links in the scm
report was better to let users choose where they want to have a look
now, if we decide to change, let's change for all components in a row
Regards,
Hervé
Le di
On Fri 30 Mar 2018 at 10:20, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2018-03-30 um 10:47 schrieb Basin Ilya:
> > Hi.
> > We need your opinion on the following topic. While Svn and Cvs providers
> perform the list() operation remotely and don't need a checkout directory,
> Git and some others
> > simply list t
