On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 16, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On May 16, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 05/16/2013 10:54 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >>> > >>> On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think > that happens that often > >>>> > >>>> And it's surely not going to improve... > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done > lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would > need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on > xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need > to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote. > >>>> > >>>>> 3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so > it's not a blocker > >>>> > >>>> It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you > >>>> simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the > >>>> Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git > >>>> integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious > >>>> solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard for > >>>> Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a > >>>> dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used to > >>>> and will simply can't, period. > >>> > >>> What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth > I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs > the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki > project… > >> > >> But this is why we have a democracy and not a dictatorship. If the > >> community considers it is worth the effort, and at least some devs are > >> willing to work on this, then I think it's their right to do this. > > > > 1) You should re-read the governance. It's a meritocracy, i.e we vote > important changes and devs need to be ok. So if one or a few devs want to > do this but some other don't for some valid reason then it's not going to > happen until we reach a decision. > > > > 2) It's all the devs that will bear the cost of maintaining the new > environment, no just the dev who's willing to do the initial work. > > > > BTW none of us work on a windows environment and I think it's a bad idea > to implement support for something that we never use. It can only lead to > something that gets broken frequently. To overcome this we'd need some > windows agent and this means supporting that agent and making sure it works > all the time (we tried in the past and failed for a very simple reason: > none of the devs use windows and thus we don't care). > > > >> It's not a good move to veto the will of the community. > > > > Again (in case you didn't understand) I'm ok on the principle of doing > this move but doing cowboy-coding without thinking about the consequences > and letting other fix your stuff by only doing half of the work isn't my > preferred style… > > > > We've had enough bad examples of the dev environment being broken for > week(s not so long ago that it's normal to want to be careful... > > > >> Anyway, there are other reasons to make the change, not just Windows > >> compatibility. It saves about 2 seconds each time a dev wants to go to a > >> directory from the command line. Going into one subdirectory means > >> having to press "x tab <right prefix of the submodule> tab". The first > >> two keys are superfluous since they're the same all the time. The deeper > >> the hierarchy, the longer the time it takes to go there. It adds up to > >> more than an hour wasted per year per dev, and I don't think it will > >> really take a whole month of every dev to do the migration. If everybody > >> contributes and we do a systematic effort, it could be done in an hour > >> with the right planning. > > > > So to reiterate and to be constructive, before we start any actual work > on this I'd like that we do more evaluation. This means: > > * see a list of windows coders who have expressed a need (apart from > Florin who I know already) and who have a real will to participate after > the move. Do we have at least one? > > * that we list what needs to be done precisely. I've identified some so > far: > > ** the git path changes > > ** modify all the xwiki.org pages linking to code > > ** git history, will we loose ability to see history of files? > > ** others? > > ** what happens to the JIRA links to commits in the Commits tab? Will they > still work? > I fully agree to have all that clarified before voting on this one. Thanks, > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > * to list who is ok to participate actively in the move > > * that we agree on a date so that it doesn't impact our planned roadmap > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >>> We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that > migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on > our releases... > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> -Vincent > >>> > >>> PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of the > new model for example ;) > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Sergiu Dumitriu > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
