Re: GH:zsh-users/zsh-completions.

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:24:36 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Peter Stephenson
> <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > That seems to me the wrong way to go.  There's no absolute need for
> > completions to be in the same place as the source.  Either keep them
> > separate and updated and installed separately (but potentially bundled
> > with a source release for convenience) or keep them (or an stabilised
> > version, as above) with the source, with the restrictions that implies.
>
> The main issues for me would be (1) where are bugs reported and
> solutions discussed,

If we expected lots more activity in the completion area, it might be
worth thinking about another mailing list regardless of where the
repository is.  Presumably there would be requests to cherry-pick
people's changes that needed to go somewhere.

The disadvantage is this has overlap with the users list (is this
a shell feature or just an issue with a completion script?) and
history suggests the human race isn't very good at dealing with
overlapping mailing lists.

> and (2) at how many different places (github,
> sourceforge, etc.) must I maintain accounts (and corresponding
> separate git clones) in order to be able to contribute?

It's easy to have additional repositories at Sourceforge --- the
question is whether they can be set up conveniently for the desired
model, which I don't know.  I think in any case this is easier than
trying to mix and match with a single repsository in Sourceforge --- the
expense being you'd clone one extra repo but identically to how you do
the source repository.  That's already how the website repository works.
But that might not get us what's required to get this off the ground.

pws