[Dovecot] Dovecot git mirror
I've been working on Evolution's 'imapx' back end to support QRESYNC, and was going to look at NOTIFY next. Then I realised I may have to look at implementing it on the server side first.
Before I can even contemplate that, though, I had to mirror it into git. I've always resisted the one-version-control-system-per-child craze, and these days if I'm even contemplating a project which is using some other version control system, I'll start by importing it into a git repo.
Thus:
git://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.0
git://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.1
git://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.2
git://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-2.0These are browsable in gitweb as:
http://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.0
http://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.1
http://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-1.2
http://git.infradead.org/dovecot/dovecot-2.0The mirrors are updated hourly, at 15 minutes past the hour.
When making such a mirror, I usually try to ensure that it's imported in such a way that that the project maintainer(s) _could_ switch to using it as their primary VCS if they wanted to -- and a number of projects have actually done so. But I'm not arguing for that; I'm just making the repository available in git form in case it's useful to anyone else who, like me, doesn't really want to install and learn to use all of arch/hg/bzr/monotone/svn/etc for various different projects. No VCS flame wars please.
-- dwmw2
On 05/07/2010 09:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
That's quite helpful - thanks for that.
I believe both Bazar and Mercurial have some key features that proponents find better than git, but I concede that I'm much more familiar with git and struggle to do much more than the basics in any of the others...
Thanks for maintaining this
Ed W
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 09:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
I had planned on leaving NOTIFY until I get mailbox list indexes implemented (http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2009-December/045480.html), otherwise it's going to be annoyingly inefficient. Of course, feel free to implement an inefficient way and I'll just make it faster later once the indexes are done. :)
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 11:55 +0100, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Yeah, I'd seen that. For testing the client, though, I don't mind if it's not hugely efficient. I wasn't going to bother with the indices.
I was thinking of just setting up inotify watches on each watched folder -- and whenever the inotify triggers, act as if a STATUS command had been sent for the corresponding folder. There are more details to cope with for a properly compliant implementation, but that covers the majority of what I wanted for client testing.
-- dwmw2
participants (3)
-
David Woodhouse
-
Ed W
-
Timo Sirainen