#160: Proposal to use GitHub instead of trac
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: jonathan | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by jonathan):
Comments from Dave Blodgett posted at https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-
conventions/issues/106
@rsignell-usgs has urged me to comment on the [thread related to !GitHub
and it’s use in place of trac](https://cf-
trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/160#comment:11). I don’t have a trac account and
couldn’t figure out how to sign up, so I've decided to respond in github
to demonstrate what it's about.
As someone who uses !GitHub extensively for project planning/management,
as a source code repository, and as a registry for development of an in-
process OGC standard, I don’t think it’s worth debating the merits of
github’s community facilitation model. Rather, the discussion should be
how this community wants to migrate its existing activities to !GitHub and
how the community wants to leverage the github infrastructure.
A few points to note about github's functionality that may be of use to
the community.
1. The CF email list should probably live on near term, at some level,
and repeating !GitHub notifications through the list is fine. That said,
this is the last email list I’m on and I REALLY wish it would move to a
searchable indexed list of issues, as I’d like to get the conversations
out in the open and not buried in email formatting and archived inboxes.
[Subscribing is really easy!](https://help.github.com/articles/watching-
repositories/) [Joining github is too!](https://github.com/join)
2. [Github issues](https://guides.github.com/features/issues/) work just
like email if you want to use them that way. Once you’ve [watched a
repository](https://help.github.com/articles/watching-repositories/), you
[can respond directly](https://github.com/blog/811-reply-to-comments-from-
email) to an issue email and your comment shows up in the issue’s
discussion.
3. Using !GitHub is easy if you don’t care to use all the software
repository features, e.g. branches. [There’s super simple wiki
functionality,](https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/) [forking a
project](https://guides.github.com/activities/forking/) and [editing
documents in the browser](https://github.com/blog/844-forking-with-the-
edit-button) are super simple and you don’t need to know all the
complexities behind it.
4. A lot more cool stuff can be done... and things can get kind of out of
hand... [peruse the back issues here](https://github.com/twhiteaker
/netCDF-CF-simple-geometry/issues) or [just check out this cherry bomb of
a 60-comment thread!](https://github.com/twhiteaker/netCDF-CF-simple-
geometry/issues/40)
On and on... Like I said above though, the discussion should be how does
the community want ot use this system. What the tagging scheme will be,
things like repository ownership raised by @marqh in #63, how to deal with
stale old pull requests like #35, etc. etc.
Finally, regarding sequencing, I hope we could get 1.7 done and dusted
prior to suggesting a full stop change to the infrastructure underlying CF
governance. It would make a lot of sense to move 1.7+ into the new space
though.
Regards,
Dave
p.s. It's always good practice to finish a new issue with closure criteria
so it's original intent is clear. This issue can be closed once a planning
of a process to decide how the community wants to use github has started.
p.p.s. Also, note that there is a “mute the thread” link at the bottom of
every !GitHub notification as well as a “view it on !GitHub” link. These
are very convenient
--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/160#comment:15>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata
