On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:57 AM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:41 AM Jakob Reschke <jakres+squeak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just to relate with the outside world: GitHub, Bitbucket & Co have
>> "forks" as a solution. Since Monticello is distributed, Squeaksource could
>> offer the same feature.
>>
>> To serve the purpose of reviving abandoned projects, such forks would
>> have to be made easily visible on the original project's page. Because
>> without project admin access, the original project description will
>> obviously not change to point to the newer repository.
>>
>> Depending on the implementation it could be nearly the same as the inbox
>> proposal of Chris. Just that forks are not publicly writeable.
>>
>
> Monticello supports branches
>
>    PackageName[.branchName]-author.versionNumber
>
> However, I think branches should only be used if it truly needs to be
> branched (e.g., due to some overwhelming implementation change).  If it's
> just a fix, it shouldn't be a branch.
>
> What we want is to preserve the integral legacy of the original author's
> page, simply out of respect, while also allowing an appendage to extend its
> life and development which, in a way, also bestows respect (compared to
> creating new "competing" projects).
>
> "Inbox" isn't my favorite name for the new tab, I actually prefer
> "Latest", but it's already taken..
>

"Patches" could work. "Pull request" is probably too git centric.
Maybe "Patch request"

Best,
Karl


>
>  - Chris
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20221008/4975456b/attachment-0001.html>