On Nov 18, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Meier, Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the majority of code developers want to change, I’ll go along with it. I >> think in this case it makes sense to classify a code developer as anyone who >> has contributed a code change (either by submitting a patch or that has svn >> access). I’ll also take votes from anyone who says they would contribute if >> we moved to git. Fair enough? > Great, thats cool! > Here's a +1 for git from my side. > > All the best! > Roger > > PS: > I gave it a try by converting trunk to git with > https://github.com/nirvdrum/svn2git > And the result is here: https://github.com/bufferoverflow/fossology Nice. We talked about this at our developers meeting a few minutes ago (your invited to join ;-). Here are my notes: 1) Paul suggested you use git-svn as an work around. But I see from the above url that you are beyond that. Thanks for doing this. 2) None of us, except Paul, know GIT 3) No one had a preference. 4) The fossology-spdx module is already in git on github https://github.com/spdx-tools/fossology-spdx 5) Making it easier for people to contribute to fossology is a good thing. If switching to git helps that, then it is worth it. 6) Since we are on sourceforge now, we probably wouldn’t move to github. But this needs more consideration. 7) We have been reasonably happy with fossology.org (issue tracking, website, docs,…) hosted by OSUOSL. So those infrastructure pieces on github probably aren’t a big draw. But this needs more consideration. (thanks Dan) We are going to talk about this again after 2.4.0 is released (Dec. 12, 2013) but I’m leaning on making the switch. Bob Gobeille _______________________________________________ fossology mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
