On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +0000, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning
> and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done
> anything with the history I only added one commit which will never conflict
> with upstream unless you add a .Travis.yml file :)

I don't think merge conflicts are the problem here.  If the GitHub
mirror claims to be a mirror but adds an additional commit B:

  -o---o---o---A  notmuch/master
                \
                 B  github/master

Someone who takes the “mirror” claim at face value may use
github/master as the base for some feature:

  -o---o---o---A  notmuch/master
                \
                 B  github/master
                  \
                   C---o---o  some-feature

Now when they submit the patches to this list, they might send a patch
series that drags in B (probably not what the some-feature author
wanted).  Alternatively, they might send a patch series starting with
C and say “this is based on B”, and anyone who's only following the
main repo thinks, “What is B?  I don't have that commit.”.

You'll also have to continuously rebase github/master to keep A on top
of notmuch/master, which means any feature branches built on
github/master will *also* have to be continuously rebased:

  -o---o---o---A---D  notmuch/master
                    \
                     A'  github/master
                      \
                       B'---o---o  some-feature

Keeping a fork with commits that aren't upstream is fine, and
maintaining a fork with an additional .Travis.yml file will probably
be pretty easy, but calling that fork a mirror is going to cause
needless confusion.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy