Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Am 06.10.2011 23:01, schrieb Enrico Tröger: On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:43:42 -0700, Matthew wrote: On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Yeehaw. Er, I think this is a good idea. Then we could also migrate the talks and newsletter repositories from git.geany.org to Github into the Geany organisation since these two repositories are no read-only mirror repositories and so better fit together with the rest of the project's code at one place. +1 And we could integrate the geany-plugins' repository there. I'm currently thinking of an approach how to do the flow with git as the general workflow differs a bit from Geany itself. Will come up with a workflow proposal after 0.21 release but moving to github also in general is a good idea. Cheers, Frank ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Hi Guys SILLY question ! and yes I know I can google but thought you guys might have a goto guide for it ?? Since Geany is going to git... and i've (please tell me I'm not the only one) have never used git (as an active developer) So wat in your opinion was the best intro/tutorial/manual about Git that you have read ? I.e if your mom wants to learn git where would you point her ? :) Regards Jacques On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Cheers, Matthew Brush [1] https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations [2] https://github.com/mongodb ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On 6 October 2011 17:35, Jacques du Rand jacque...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guys SILLY question ! and yes I know I can google but thought you guys might have a goto guide for it ?? yeah, go to google :) everyday git, try that and/or tutorial all on the git site :) Cheers lex Since Geany is going to git... and i've (please tell me I'm not the only one) have never used git (as an active developer) everybody was a never user once So wat in your opinion was the best intro/tutorial/manual about Git that you have read ? I.e if your mom wants to learn git where would you point her ? :) Regards Jacques On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Cheers, Matthew Brush [1] https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations [2] https://github.com/mongodb ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 01:23, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200, Colomban wrote: Hi all, Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on. Yay, yay, yay. @all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between GitHub and Gitorious. I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because it has one thing I quite liked and that Gitorious don't seem to have: comments on a particular While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub seems to be at least working fine, stable stuff. And as we don't stop to say, we can anyway switch to another host if it feels too bad at some point. Of course keeping the same hosting is easier for people tracking the repo, but it's not really hard to change the remote either if there is a good reason to do so. Finally, we'll need to all (at least committers -- Nick, Enrico, Frank and I --, Enrico and I) work a bit together to do the switch: * committers needs to stop committing to SVN when export to Git starts * somebody (Jiří?) needs to export the SVN repo * somebody (me I think) need to setup an upstream repo on GitHub/Gitorious * we'll have to update everything that assume we commit to SF's SVN (some mirroring, commit ML, etc). Enrico, I guess we'll need you at Well, the GIT mirror at git.geany.org gets rather useless when Geany's source itself is maintained in GIT, if we want, we can keep it up running for backup or whatever purposes. I assume it's no problem to change the repository to pull from a real GIT repo instead of SVN. I'd like to see it still up as a mirror if you don't mind (heh, it's your server after all). This would also make us have a stable hosting since we could change it's origin if it actually moves. The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic there is somewhere a usable implementation out there on the net. Matthew seems to suggest it may be easy, let's hope so :D Maybe I/you could try with another project just to see if this work, not to rush the final day ^^ I'd also need to adjust the nightly builds and some update scripts on geany.org but this is less important and can be done asynchronously, read later. The only critical to me are the commit mails. Great then, makes the plan looking even more reasonable :) So, we'll need to work together soon, and that'll need us to coordinate ourselves. So Jiří (if you accept re-exporting), Enrico, Nick and Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I'm also for as soon as possible, upcoming weekend would be fine for me, ideally on Sunday. OK, let's say Sunday then since it seems to fit :) ACK. Would it be possible that I start with the conversion on Saturday evening already? First I'm not sure how much time I'll have on Sunday, second it gives us some time buffer if something goes wrong or if I need some further clarifications during the conversion. From your side it would just mean to stop comitting to SVN Saturday evening (let's say 6 P.M. CET which is GMT+2 during summer - recalculate it to your time zone). In any case, I'll send an announcement that I started with the conversion. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:52:44 +0200, Jiří wrote: OK, let's say Sunday then since it seems to fit :) ACK. Would it be possible that I start with the conversion on Saturday evening already? First I'm not sure how much time I'll have on Sunday, second it gives us some time buffer if something goes wrong or if I Good idea. I'd be fine with Saturday evening. need some further clarifications during the conversion. From your side it would just mean to stop comitting to SVN Saturday evening (let's say 6 P.M. CET which is GMT+2 during summer - recalculate it to your time zone). In any case, I'll send an announcement that I started with the conversion. Great. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpwMbf01ogk7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:23:11 +0200, Colomban wrote: Heya, * we'll have to update everything that assume we commit to SF's SVN (some mirroring, commit ML, etc). Enrico, I guess we'll need you at Well, the GIT mirror at git.geany.org gets rather useless when Geany's source itself is maintained in GIT, if we want, we can keep it up running for backup or whatever purposes. I assume it's no problem to change the repository to pull from a real GIT repo instead of SVN. I'd like to see it still up as a mirror if you don't mind (heh, it's your server after all). This would also make us have a stable hosting since we could change it's origin if it actually moves. Ok, fine. Don't worry about the server, the GIT mirror is the least bit it has to do :D. The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic there is somewhere a usable implementation out there on the net. Matthew seems to suggest it may be easy, let's hope so :D Maybe I/you could try with another project just to see if this work, not to rush the final day ^^ Will do. I'll start playing with this right now, so we are not that surprised on Sunday :D. So, we'll need to work together soon, and that'll need us to coordinate ourselves. So Jiří (if you accept re-exporting), Enrico, Nick and Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I'm also for as soon as possible, upcoming weekend would be fine for me, ideally on Sunday. OK, let's say Sunday then since it seems to fit :) Great. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpm8HNdmZQVw.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:43:42 -0700, Matthew wrote: On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Yeehaw. Er, I think this is a good idea. Then we could also migrate the talks and newsletter repositories from git.geany.org to Github into the Geany organisation since these two repositories are no read-only mirror repositories and so better fit together with the rest of the project's code at one place. And we could integrate the geany-plugins' repository there. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgp1RJD1IZuVw.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Le 06/10/2011 22:35, Enrico Tröger a écrit : On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:52:44 +0200, Jiří wrote: OK, let's say Sunday then since it seems to fit :) ACK. Would it be possible that I start with the conversion on Saturday evening already? First I'm not sure how much time I'll have on Sunday, second it gives us some time buffer if something goes wrong or if I Good idea. I'd be fine with Saturday evening. +1, and I'm fine with Saturday evening too. need some further clarifications during the conversion. From your side it would just mean to stop comitting to SVN Saturday evening (let's say 6 P.M. CET which is GMT+2 during summer - recalculate it to your time zone). In any case, I'll send an announcement that I started with the conversion. Maybe CC Nick, I'm not sure he reads all ML's mail, and he better know it :) Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Le 06/10/2011 23:01, Enrico Tröger a écrit : On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:43:42 -0700, Matthew wrote: On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Yeehaw. Er, I think this is a good idea. Then we could also migrate the talks and newsletter repositories from git.geany.org to Github into the Geany organisation since these two repositories are no read-only mirror repositories and so better fit together with the rest of the project's code at one place. And we could integrate the geany-plugins' repository there. Good points, +1 :) Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:17:44 -0700, Matthew wrote: On 11-10-03 02:02 PM, Enrico Tröger wrote: The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic there is somewhere a usable implementation out there on the net. GitHub has an Email service hook, presumably you could get this to send a message to some mailing list. There's also a service hook for IRC. Oops, I must have overlooked it somehow or they just added it after I checked last time :D. Anyways, I tried setting it up and as some of you might have seen, a test commit mail gone through onto the list, so it works pretty straight and easy. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpeABouFCYIt.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On 11-10-05 04:23 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 03/10/2011 23:02, Enrico Tröger a écrit : While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Well then, let's try GitHub. I also prefer FOSS everywhere, but GitHub We should make a completely separate GitHub account called geany, then convert it into an Organization[1], which allows all kinds of more neat features for a project like Geany (as opposed to having it as a Personal account). See an example FOSS project account here[2]. I will volunteer to handle setting up an Organization account and with the initial setup for service hooks and stuff. Cheers, Matthew Brush [1] https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations [2] https://github.com/mongodb ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real) (was: Re: geany on github; why not?)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I suggest weekend around 2011-10-29. At least at this weekend I've nothing planned yet. But IIRC Enrico was on travel at this date. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpkhlPpD3mYx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real) (was: Re: geany on github; why not?)
Am Montag, den 03.10.2011, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Colomban Wendling: Apart that I don't mind, both have the necessary stuff, and Gitorious is more free as in freedom. Exactly the reason why I'd personally prefer Gitorous over Github. :) Regards, Dominic -- Dominic Hopf dma...@googlemail.com http://dominichopf.de/ Key Fingerprint: A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Le 03/10/2011 17:32, Frank Lanitz a écrit : On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I suggest weekend around 2011-10-29. At least at this weekend I've nothing planned yet. But IIRC Enrico was on travel at this date. I feel it a bit too far, but... However, I think that for normal committers (you, Nick), there's not much to do: 1) stop committing to SVN during the export; 2) create an account on the new hosting site if not already done; 3) tell the repo owner (me(?)) to grant you commit stuff rights; 4) start committing using Git on new host. Apart 1, you can even still commit during the process since Git is a DVCS, only push would require steps 2 and 3. I think this is pretty cheap and can probably be done in a couple of minutes, plus maybe another couple of minutes to read/check the new committing rules (e.g. push development commit to develop branch rather than master, etc.). The big part is the SVN export/import and porting of commit hooks, not sure if you have some? I'm not saying you shouldn't participate (the more qualified volunteers the better!), just that maybe if you haven't the time we can do by ourselves ;) Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real) (was: Re: geany on github; why not?)
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Hi all, Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on. Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří Techet a écrit : [...] End of the long email finally! I tried to record all what needs to be done so nothing is forgotten once the real migration takes place because some of the stuff took some time to discover. @Jiří: Would you mind doing the real export since you know have a little experience? Sure, no problem. Just one thing I'd like to mention - I may be a security problem. During the export I can modify any commit (e.g. to send me the contents of the editor by email) and you probably won't notice. On the other hand, the good thing is that: 1. I don't feel it's something I'd like to do (but you cannot be sure I'm telling you the truth) 2. You can compare the current state of master with your SVN checkout so you'll see immediately if there's something wrong with the top of trunk. I might modify some past commits but these would have lower impact because everyone either uses the latest trunk or the latest stable release. Actually what's much more probable is that I screw up the conversion somehow ;-). @all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between GitHub and Gitorious. I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because it has one thing I quite liked and that Gitorious don't seem to have: comments on a particular commit's line. I did use it a few times with Matthew, and I felt it quite convenient to comment details [1] Apart that I don't mind, both have the necessary stuff, and Gitorious is more free as in freedom. Also, I think that we should at least try Vincent Driessen's branching model [2] (e.g. develop branch + feature branches + release branches). It might looks a bit containing at first glance, but also makes things clean -- but note I never tried it in a real project, maybe I'm wrong. Finally, we'll need to all (at least committers -- Nick, Enrico, Frank and I --, Enrico and I) work a bit together to do the switch: * committers needs to stop committing to SVN when export to Git starts * somebody (Jiří?) needs to export the SVN repo * somebody (me I think) need to setup an upstream repo on GitHub/Gitorious * we'll have to update everything that assume we commit to SF's SVN (some mirroring, commit ML, etc). Enrico, I guess we'll need you at least to help here still a bit, sorry ^^ So, we'll need to work together soon, and that'll need us to coordinate ourselves. So Jiří (if you accept re-exporting), Enrico, Nick and Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) It would be good if all this could be done as soon as possible so we can start development again using this new scheme. Sooner's better. About the timing, I'd prefer this weekend. There have been suggestions like 2011-10-29 but this is my birthday and even though I like Geany, I want to spend my birthday in a different way than making git conversions ;-). Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
Le 03/10/2011 18:59, Jiří Techet a écrit : On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Hi all, Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on. Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří Techet a écrit : [...] End of the long email finally! I tried to record all what needs to be done so nothing is forgotten once the real migration takes place because some of the stuff took some time to discover. @Jiří: Would you mind doing the real export since you know have a little experience? Sure, no problem. Just one thing I'd like to mention - I may be a security problem. During the export I can modify any commit (e.g. to send me the contents of the editor by email) and you probably won't notice. On the other hand, the good thing is that: Right, good remark, though making it gives you even more credit ^^ 1. I don't feel it's something I'd like to do (but you cannot be sure I'm telling you the truth) Heh, thanks for willingness at least! 2. You can compare the current state of master with your SVN checkout so you'll see immediately if there's something wrong with the top of trunk. I might modify some past commits but these would have lower impact because everyone either uses the latest trunk or the latest stable release. Yeah, there are easy ways to check the result fits SVN HEAD. Checking older branches and tags are a bit harder, yet doable, but as you say yourself, it's less sensitive. And let's be honest, I could be the bad guy here too... ^^ Actually what's much more probable is that I screw up the conversion somehow ;-). Not better than I would do ;) [...] It would be good if all this could be done as soon as possible so we can start development again using this new scheme. Sooner's better. About the timing, I'd prefer this weekend. There have been suggestions like 2011-10-29 but this is my birthday and even though I like Geany, I want to spend my birthday in a different way than making git conversions ;-). I can't understand this, it's s selfish ;( (just kidding) Actually I feel would prefer it to be next weekend because it's sooner, and as said in another mail, I'm not sure we really need more than you, Enrico and I to complete it. Let's wait for Enrico's answer (if he's still on that ML, hehe!) and see when he got enough spare time to spend on it. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real) (was: Re: geany on github; why not?)
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:59:49 +0200 Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:28, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Hi all, Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on. Le 05/09/2011 23:05, Jiří Techet a écrit : [...] End of the long email finally! I tried to record all what needs to be done so nothing is forgotten once the real migration takes place because some of the stuff took some time to discover. @Jiří: Would you mind doing the real export since you know have a little experience? Sure, no problem. Just one thing I'd like to mention - I may be a security problem. During the export I can modify any commit (e.g. to send me the contents of the editor by email) and you probably won't notice. On the other hand, the good thing is that: 1. I don't feel it's something I'd like to do (but you cannot be sure I'm telling you the truth) Well. We can verify the hash of source code after transition with the hash we do have signed on server or e.g. in our personal git repos. 2. You can compare the current state of master with your SVN checkout so you'll see immediately if there's something wrong with the top of trunk. I might modify some past commits but these would have lower impact because everyone either uses the latest trunk or the latest stable release. ACK. About the timing, I'd prefer this weekend. There have been suggestions like 2011-10-29 but this is my birthday and even though I like Geany, I want to spend my birthday in a different way than making git conversions ;-). I'm fine also with this. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpg6rulPTbUC.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:29:25 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Le 03/10/2011 17:32, Frank Lanitz a écrit : On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I suggest weekend around 2011-10-29. At least at this weekend I've nothing planned yet. But IIRC Enrico was on travel at this date. I feel it a bit too far, but... However, I think that for normal committers (you, Nick), there's not much to do: 1) stop committing to SVN during the export; 2) create an account on the new hosting site if not already done; 3) tell the repo owner (me(?)) to grant you commit stuff rights; 4) start committing using Git on new host. Apart 1, you can even still commit during the process since Git is a DVCS, only push would require steps 2 and 3. I think this is pretty cheap and can probably be done in a couple of minutes, plus maybe another couple of minutes to read/check the new committing rules (e.g. push development commit to develop branch rather than master, etc.). The big part is the SVN export/import and porting of commit hooks, not sure if you have some? I'm not saying you shouldn't participate (the more qualified volunteers the better!), just that maybe if you haven't the time we can do by ourselves ;) You asked for a date when I'm free so I looked up ;) But as mentioned in another mail also this weekend would be fine or any other date as I don't be involved this much at this phase. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpSigdpp5NRB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On 11-10-03 08:33 AM, Dominic Hopf wrote: Am Montag, den 03.10.2011, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Colomban Wendling: Apart that I don't mind, both have the necessary stuff, and Gitorious is more free as in freedom. Exactly the reason why I'd personally prefer Gitorous over Github. :) Do you plan to put a copy of Gitorious's web UI on your own server or something? Maybe installed next to your local GMail installation? /sarcasm Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real) (was: Re: geany on github; why not?)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:28:14 +0200, Colomban wrote: Hi all, Now the release is out, it's time for the real migration. There's things to do then, and perhaps a few we still need to agree on. Yay, yay, yay. @all: We will switch to Git, and we need to choose basically between GitHub and Gitorious. I'd vote for trying GitHub, just because it has one thing I quite liked and that Gitorious don't seem to have: comments on a particular While I usually plead for free software I'd also vote for Github in this regard. In the last weeks I started to use it for smaller personal stuff just to get it hosted somewhere, easily. And it worked. Github is just damn easy, fast and intuitive. While I have not much experience with Gitorious, it feels more like the opposite. Though this is just my personal opinion. Finally, we'll need to all (at least committers -- Nick, Enrico, Frank and I --, Enrico and I) work a bit together to do the switch: * committers needs to stop committing to SVN when export to Git starts * somebody (Jiří?) needs to export the SVN repo * somebody (me I think) need to setup an upstream repo on GitHub/Gitorious * we'll have to update everything that assume we commit to SF's SVN (some mirroring, commit ML, etc). Enrico, I guess we'll need you at Well, the GIT mirror at git.geany.org gets rather useless when Geany's source itself is maintained in GIT, if we want, we can keep it up running for backup or whatever purposes. I assume it's no problem to change the repository to pull from a real GIT repo instead of SVN. The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic there is somewhere a usable implementation out there on the net. I'd also need to adjust the nightly builds and some update scripts on geany.org but this is less important and can be done asynchronously, read later. The only critical to me are the commit mails. So, we'll need to work together soon, and that'll need us to coordinate ourselves. So Jiří (if you accept re-exporting), Enrico, Nick and Frank: when can we do the actual switch? I can have the time whenever I want this week, I just need to know ;) I'm also for as soon as possible, upcoming weekend would be fine for me, ideally on Sunday. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpIubfkJGOOm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:15:23 +0200, Colomban wrote: Let's wait for Enrico's answer (if he's still on that ML, hehe!) and Ha, I got a personal reminder (thanks Frank) though I would have read this anyways. And answered a bit above in this thread. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgppVGNqYyOIS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch (for real)
On 11-10-03 02:02 PM, Enrico Tröger wrote: The commit mails may be more complicated, at least on Github there seems nothing ready-to-use AFAIK. They have the HTTP-Push hook which seems quite appropriate. We just need a script to receive that push and make it into a mail. However, I'm optimistic there is somewhere a usable implementation out there on the net. GitHub has an Email service hook, presumably you could get this to send a message to some mailing list. There's also a service hook for IRC. It also has RSS feeds for repositories as well as all kinds of notifications that users can enable for different things (like commits, comments, issues, etc). Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 20:12, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit : I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rather cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much more painful process. Well... this makes sense, but having the but tracker on SF and the code on GitHub seems a bit like a suboptimal option -- though since SF don't really link bug tracker and VCS maybe it'd not really change anything. But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy around like merge requests, reviews co. I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't scared by their policy. I really have nothing specific against GitHub (actually from what I have seen I like it better than Gitorious) and I have no evidence they are planning to change their policy. What I wanted to say is that the selection of the right VCS hosting site is much less critical decision than hosting of the bug tracker. If you decide to change the git hosting site for some reason, there's no problem - you push your repository there, update a few links and you're done. But this is much harder to do with the bug tracker and it should be double-checked it satisfies all your needs from all possible perspectives. Bug tracker switch and VCS switch are really two different things. Actually one possibility is to really keep the main git repository under SF and just mirror it to GitHub so people can create their personal branches. Git is a distributed VCS so it doesn't matter where the master repository is located. In fact, there are three different questions: 1. Do we want to switch to git? 2. Where should we have our git repository hosted? 3. Where should we have our bug tracker hosted? I suggest answering and implementing them one by one. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 05/10/11 14:05, Jiří Techet wrote: I really have nothing specific against GitHub (actually from what I have seen I like it better than Gitorious) and I have no evidence they are planning to change their policy. What I wanted to say is that the selection of the right VCS hosting site is much less critical decision than hosting of the bug tracker. If you decide to change the git hosting site for some reason, there's no problem - you push your repository there, update a few links and you're done. But this is much harder to do with the bug tracker and it should be double-checked it satisfies all your needs from all possible perspectives. Agreed, it's a separate concern to some extent, although if Geany sets up shop on GitHub, I don't know why any users would want to suffer through the miserable SourceForge interface/search misfeature/email unreporting when there's a nice working interface on GH. The one thing that could be an issue, and I've yet to confirm this, is whether the GitHub issue tracker requires users to login with a GitHub/OpenID/OAuth account or not (or whether it's optional). I think allowing anonymous bug reports is kind of important, although I'm not sure even SourceForge is allowing this now (I'm always logged in). Actually one possibility is to really keep the main git repository under SF and just mirror it to GitHub so people can create their personal branches. Git is a distributed VCS so it doesn't matter where the master repository is located. IMO, as I've said before, if it's just read-only Git mirror, it adds very little value, and only solves a small part of the problem. If a GitHub repository gets setup as a read-only repository (and by read-only I mean that none of the core devs actually use it or the features of GitHub), you're gonna end up with a tons of forks and pull requests against the main repository and none of the forks are ever gonna get merged back into the mainline rendering the whole workflow pointless, it will be the same as it currently is. There will be no code reviews, no ownership of the changes, no record of pending change requests, and so on. Instead of uniting the Geany community, I can only see this as fragmenting it and still the same problems with contributing. In fact, there are three different questions: 1. Do we want to switch to git? 2. Where should we have our git repository hosted? 3. Where should we have our bug tracker hosted? I suggest answering and implementing them one by one. I suggest merging the first two questions into one. The third of course needs more careful consideration since it's not as trivial to move the BT around, although as I said in another post, it probably wouldn't be super tough to move the BT reports from SF to GH since SF provides an export interface and GH an import interface. My $0.02 Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Hey, Sorry for the response delay, but not I answer: Le 28/04/2011 03:36, Matthew Brush a écrit : Summary from previous thread: The people in the thread who do not want to switch to Git, or those who don't seem to care either way, are those who have commit access to Subversion on SourceForge. Most (if not all) contributors to Geany are using Git (via git-svn). The workflow for those who don't have commit access on the subversion repository, when contributing to Geany is sub-optimal (to put it politely). SourceForge is painfully slow and the interface for viewing SVN source code online isn't great. Agreed, mostly on the fact that SF is quite weirdly painful to use in many situations. I think the reason GitHub/Gitorious is mentioned so much is not only because of the Git in their name, but also because it allows people who don't have commit access to actually be active members in the community, by means of having their public forked repositories, sending merge/pull requests, etc. I don't know GitHub, but it looks great at first glance. The only thing I don't necessarily like is being this much depend of an external host, but it's probably the cost of not maintaining our own whole set of services and servers. And anyway we already have this with SF. The only thing I think would be awesome and really useful would be to have the GitHub wiki on geany.org (or vice-versa). Since its seems to be an open-source Wiki software using Git, it may be doable; and that'd be awesome. Cons from the previous thread: - It's more social I have some cons against social networks, but there are pros here, so... - Not plain enough (I guess too Web 2.0/feature-full/cluttered) I don't personally mind if it's not intrusive. - Effort required to move the project That's the big part! - Having to learn a new VCS for those not familiar with Git True. Though I think Git is quite handy for the basic features (commit/diff/log/pull/push/merges/branches/cherry-picks), probably less with more advanced ones, but they are less used, aren't they? (though I rebase almost everyday, but still :D) Pros from the thread: [...] - Moving the codebase and history is very easy, for example using the script from the thread or GitHub offers you to import a SVN repository through the web interface when creating a new repository. That's a great point for GitHub - Easier to contribute to the project for those without write access - Faster hosting and better interface. Seems like I agree. - Harder to have patches slip through the crack. - Not having to maintain/create patches as much/at all. That's not necessarily true, but yes, patches at least have a proper managing system. - No need to maintain changelog and authors files That's not true. Our ChangeLog don't contain each and every commit, nor necessarily the whole commit message. Although I don't personally second such ChangeLog (mostly because we have to maintain it and it's the biggest source of conflicts), I understand the point of Nick and Enrico to keep it, and won't start discussion on this again. - Proper attribution, blame and history for contributors and not having to put Thanks in all the commit messages. That's a good point, too. Not sure if I missed any, or misconstrued them. Here's some features of better project hosting sites. I'm listing things from GitHub because I know it better than Gitorious and others: - Great source code viewer, branch/file browser, history/commit viewer. - Ability to link to and comment on commits and even specific lines of a commit, for code review, etc. - Nice network graph viewer to get a better idea of what everyone else is working on, needs to be commited, etc[2]. - Tracker for pull/merge requests so no need for contributors to generate/maintain patch(sets) and keep bumping ML threads so their patches don't go forgotten. - Fork queue to compare other peoples repositories' commits against your repository to cherry pick specific commits, with an indication of whether or not the commit/patch will likely cleanly apply - Good issue/bug tracker - Built-in Wiki software - Nice graphs to show languages, impact, commit activity, etc - Web hooks to notify by email/ML, IRC and other services of commits, etc.[4] - No need to create nightly tarballs separately since the server takes care of this automatically when users clicks the Download link. Yeah, GitHub functionality looks great. I don't think Gitorious offers as much functionality (e.g. no bug tracker). The one I probably misses the most on SF is automated ticked closing from a commit (e.g. the closes #foo stuff). Hopefully this will stir up a little discussion about actually switching because every time I use SourceForge I die a little inside :) I think switching to one of the Git project hosting sites will really help the community/contributors get involved and feel like part of the team while still making sure the official
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Le 28/04/2011 23:43, Jiří Techet a écrit : On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote: - No need to maintain changelog and authors files Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they can be automated? Seems not too hard with git log and some shell script[1]. I think the original thread also mentions a way (or that it's possible). http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog As said in another message, our ChangeLog isn't a simple git log mirror. See the other mail for a few more details. There would be no need to use Thanks in each commit message, since the author of the commit is the person who wrote the code in it, for example[2] where I just sent Neil a properly formatted patch of my local commit and he applied it directly, keeping the history in tact. If it needed fixing to get added into the main code, this will also be reflected in the history by the next commits to fix it (and I believe the original thread says another way to do this), so no need for Based on patch by ... in any commit messages either. Just for completeness, sometimes the patch needs to be modified by the maintainer but in these cases it's better to have 2 commits - one containing the original patch and one with the maintainer's changes (especially when the modification actually screws up the original patch). I don't like the idea of committing something I don't second, e.g. I patch I have to modify just after. For me the primary goal of a commit is to reflect a particular change, and being able to revert it/cherry-pick it, etc., so it should be a whole, no less and no more. If I have to commit someone's patch with changes, I would tend to either leave it to him if the modifications are minimal (e.g. a few formatting issues, a missing free(), etc.) or take it to me, adding original author's mention (if the modifications are important). Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Le 03/05/2011 00:43, Jiří Techet a écrit : On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:33, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 02.05.2011 00:18, schrieb Jiří Techet: Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch (it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much enthusiasm from the core developers for the move so it's better if people who use git have at least an up-to-date git mirror from which they can create their private branches. The core developers don't show very much enthusiasm since a while *in general*. Well, that's not entirely true I admit, Colomban is doing a great job and Nick has been more active recently too. But my general feeling, that the community around is more active these days, remains. But the question of whether to switch to git or not has to be decided by the very core developers (Enrico, Nick). Without their decision all our discussion is pointless because the switch just won't happen. So direct question: Enrico, Nick, what's your opinion on the git switch? As Matthew said, it seems that it's possible to access a github repository both via svn and git so both the current workflow and git-based workflow should be possible. Of course I'll try to help with whatever I can during the migration. I second the Git switch, so 1/4 (and I guess Frank will second too). Just note I have no experience using GitHub (or even no real with Gitorious) or working with pull requests and co, but I'd be happy to git it a try -- and probably adopt it. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 5/9/2011 9:27 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote: I second the Git switch, so 1/4 (and I guess Frank will second too). Just note I have no experience using GitHub (or even no real with Gitorious) or working with pull requests and co, but I'd be happy to git it a try -- and probably adopt it. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel I would also like to see a switch to using git, not that my opinion is worth *that* much :-) ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 16:16, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: Cons from the previous thread: - It's more social I have some cons against social networks, but there are pros here, so... - Not plain enough (I guess too Web 2.0/feature-full/cluttered) I don't personally mind if it's not intrusive. - Effort required to move the project That's the big part! Not that bad if you move the repository only to GitHub - see below. - No need to maintain changelog and authors files That's not true. Our ChangeLog don't contain each and every commit, nor necessarily the whole commit message. Although I don't personally second such ChangeLog (mostly because we have to maintain it and it's the biggest source of conflicts), I understand the point of Nick and Enrico to keep it, and won't start discussion on this again. Could you point me to the discussion? I've missed that one. (I too find a manual-maintained ChangeLog to be too much effort with too little gain.) Obviously I'm not suggesting that the SourceForge project page is deleted, just switching the main development activity to elsewhere. We could have a git/svn mirror over at SourceForge still, and even keep their bug/feature tracker, though I can't see why, since it's pretty lousy. The difficult part is moving bug tracking I guess. If we end up having 2 bug trackers it'd become quite a pain :/ I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rather cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much more painful process. It really wouldn't be hard either, the whole switch be done in probably 10-15 minutes, maybe 1-2hrs to wait for the history to be imported. There's no real reason it needs to be a big deal either, we could test out another project site and keep it the way it currently is still with not much extra effort, just someone/somescript needs to push to the new project page after committing to SVN. Basically all it would take beyond that is for one of the founders/core members to take some time to setup an account and push the code. Before moving all main commiters should agree (e.g. Nick and Enrico), Enrico doesn't care, you like it, so the one who will have to decide is Nick :-). but I think the creating par would not be the real problem. As discussed further later in thread the problem is more setting up correct hooks to keep all repos up to date. But those hooks were meant to be used to have a git mirror on GitHub if there's no VCS switch (mirroring the current git mirror of SVN). I don't see any point in having multiple git mirrors if you switch to git (well, actually everybody's personal clone would be such a mirror). Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
2011/5/8 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: Hi Enrico, in principle you have to put something like git push --mirror your_github_repository under .git/hooks/post-receive (in the local geany repository). When creating the github repository, you should create a new public/private key pair and make sure that the keys are available for the user who runs the git command. If you have multiple keys or there are several users, you may use this technique: Thanks for the information. However, this sounds like more work than I can effort to do. I just don't want to start with this and then it delays to ever like many other things I started (shame on me, but working on it :D). I can set up a repository at GitHub, test everything and describe what needs to be done in greater detail. But I'll do it only if the decision is _not_ to switch to git as a primary VCS for Geany in which case this work wouldn't be necessary. If anyone has time to write such a script, I'd be happy to include it as a hook script. Btw, we already have a GIT mirror at repo.or.cz: http://repo.or.cz/w/geany-mirror.git Not sure if that helps anything. Oh, I didn't know about it. How do you push commits there? It should be about the same for GitHub as well. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Mon, 9 May 2011 19:44:15 +0200, Jiří wrote: 2011/5/8 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: Hi Enrico, in principle you have to put something like git push --mirror your_github_repository under .git/hooks/post-receive (in the local geany repository). When creating the github repository, you should create a new public/private key pair and make sure that the keys are available for the user who runs the git command. If you have multiple keys or there are several users, you may use this technique: Thanks for the information. However, this sounds like more work than I can effort to do. I just don't want to start with this and then it delays to ever like many other things I started (shame on me, but working on it :D). I can set up a repository at GitHub, test everything and describe what needs to be done in greater detail. But I'll do it only if the decision is _not_ to switch to git as a primary VCS for Geany in which case this work wouldn't be necessary. If anyone has time to write such a script, I'd be happy to include it as a hook script. Btw, we already have a GIT mirror at repo.or.cz: http://repo.or.cz/w/geany-mirror.git Not sure if that helps anything. Oh, I didn't know about it. How do you push commits there? It should be about the same for GitHub as well. Don't push at all, repo.or.cz pulls. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpzu7ZjRcySU.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit : On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 16:16, Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote: - Effort required to move the project That's the big part! Not that bad if you move the repository only to GitHub - see below. Right. - No need to maintain changelog and authors files That's not true. Our ChangeLog don't contain each and every commit, nor necessarily the whole commit message. Although I don't personally second such ChangeLog (mostly because we have to maintain it and it's the biggest source of conflicts), I understand the point of Nick and Enrico to keep it, and won't start discussion on this again. Could you point me to the discussion? I've missed that one. (I too find a manual-maintained ChangeLog to be too much effort with too little gain.) Hum, seems it actually was about Geany-Plugins ChangeLog... anyway, here's the archive: http://lists.uvena.de/pipermail/geany-devel/2010-November/003401.html Obviously I'm not suggesting that the SourceForge project page is deleted, just switching the main development activity to elsewhere. We could have a git/svn mirror over at SourceForge still, and even keep their bug/feature tracker, though I can't see why, since it's pretty lousy. The difficult part is moving bug tracking I guess. If we end up having 2 bug trackers it'd become quite a pain :/ I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rather cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much more painful process. Well... this makes sense, but having the but tracker on SF and the code on GitHub seems a bit like a suboptimal option -- though since SF don't really link bug tracker and VCS maybe it'd not really change anything. But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy around like merge requests, reviews co. I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't scared by their policy. It really wouldn't be hard either, the whole switch be done in probably 10-15 minutes, maybe 1-2hrs to wait for the history to be imported. There's no real reason it needs to be a big deal either, we could test out another project site and keep it the way it currently is still with not much extra effort, just someone/somescript needs to push to the new project page after committing to SVN. Basically all it would take beyond that is for one of the founders/core members to take some time to setup an account and push the code. Before moving all main commiters should agree (e.g. Nick and Enrico), Enrico doesn't care, you like it, so the one who will have to decide is Nick :-). Yep ^^ but I think the creating par would not be the real problem. As discussed further later in thread the problem is more setting up correct hooks to keep all repos up to date. But those hooks were meant to be used to have a git mirror on GitHub if there's no VCS switch (mirroring the current git mirror of SVN). I don't see any point in having multiple git mirrors if you switch to git (well, actually everybody's personal clone would be such a mirror). I think we shouldn't drop e.g. the git.geany.org mirror if we can keep it, so we'd need a hook in the official repo to push to it or whatever. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. Well, that risk exists for any free hosting service, even Sourceforge could go broke, as Jiri says easy for DVCS, especially if there is an up to date mirror, hard for bugtracker. But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy around like merge requests, reviews co. I didn't think they allowed anyone to create a public clone, I think that is a required feature to get more involvement, anyone can say I'm going to try this... and the community can see it and provide guidance and testing. I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't scared by their policy. It really wouldn't be hard either, the whole switch be done in probably 10-15 minutes, maybe 1-2hrs to wait for the history to be imported. There's no real reason it needs to be a big deal either, we could test out another project site and keep it the way it currently is still with not much extra effort, just someone/somescript needs to push to the new project page after committing to SVN. Basically all it would take beyond that is for one of the founders/core members to take some time to setup an account and push the code. Before moving all main commiters should agree (e.g. Nick and Enrico), Enrico doesn't care, you like it, so the one who will have to decide is Nick :-). Yep ^^ but I think the creating par would not be the real problem. As discussed further later in thread the problem is more setting up correct hooks to keep all repos up to date. But those hooks were meant to be used to have a git mirror on GitHub if there's no VCS switch (mirroring the current git mirror of SVN). I don't see any point in having multiple git mirrors if you switch to git (well, actually everybody's personal clone would be such a mirror). I think we shouldn't drop e.g. the git.geany.org mirror if we can keep it, so we'd need a hook in the official repo to push to it or whatever. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 05/09/11 11:12, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit : I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rather cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much more painful process. Well... this makes sense, but having the but tracker on SF and the code on GitHub seems a bit like a suboptimal option -- though since SF don't really link bug tracker and VCS maybe it'd not really change anything. From what I can tell, the majority of the bugs in the SF tracker are either closed, open but will never get resolved or no longer apply to current versions, so I don't know how much of a big deal it would be to start moving away from it, of course always leaving it (possibly read-only?) for reference. But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. Speculating on the future of any of the project hosting sites is just that, speculation. They have different business models, like SF with ad revenue, GitHub with private paid accounts, Gitorious with extra services (and probably $ from Nokia), and Google Projects with Google's plan for total world domination. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it would be more likely for SF to go belly up due to lousy services, mass exodus to better project sites and it not being financially worthwhile for GeekNet. Put simply, AFAIK, none of these projects sites offer a guarantee that they will not shutdown, go paid only, or otherwise change their services, so I don't think speculation should be a primary factor in deciding on a project site. But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy around like merge requests, reviews co. Still leaves the problems of slow services (though Git would probably be faster), crappy web interface, lack of forking (and others you mentioned) and having public forks attached to the project, crappy bug tracker, etc. I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't scared by their policy. I can't say I'm personally opposed to Gitorious, but to me it just seems like a stripped-down version of GitHub, missing lots of the cool features. Of all the project hosting sites I've used though, the only two I really dislike are SourceForge and Launchpad followed farther by Google Projects. Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Le 10/05/2011 00:43, Lex Trotman a écrit : But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. Well, that risk exists for any free hosting service, even Sourceforge could go broke, as Jiri says easy for DVCS, especially if there is an up to date mirror, hard for bugtracker. Of course; DVCS are really helpful in this kind of situations (and many others :D). But if we keep the idea everything can go by, maybe moving BT too to GitHub wouldn't be more of a problem than leaving it on SF (apart the actual move required); and I believe that having the BT integrated with the VCS provides some comfort (even just the auto-close feature). But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy around like merge requests, reviews co. I didn't think they allowed anyone to create a public clone, I think that is a required feature to get more involvement, anyone can say I'm going to try this... and the community can see it and provide guidance and testing. No I don't think they have any fancy around the repo; it'd just make my own life easier by using true Git :D Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Le 10/05/2011 01:34, Matthew Brush a écrit : On 05/09/11 11:12, Colomban Wendling wrote: Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit : I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rather cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much more painful process. Well... this makes sense, but having the but tracker on SF and the code on GitHub seems a bit like a suboptimal option -- though since SF don't really link bug tracker and VCS maybe it'd not really change anything. From what I can tell, the majority of the bugs in the SF tracker are either closed, open but will never get resolved or no longer apply to current versions, so I don't know how much of a big deal it would be to start moving away from it, of course always leaving it (possibly read-only?) for reference. Maybe, need to check but might not be that painful (BTW, don't GitHub offers a SF BT import feature? :D) But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I read I'd not be really surprised if it happened --, do we really want to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting for us, it'd not be really good. Speculating on the future of any of the project hosting sites is just that, speculation. They have different business models, like SF with ad revenue, GitHub with private paid accounts, Gitorious with extra services (and probably $ from Nokia), and Google Projects with Google's plan for total world domination. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it would be more likely for SF to go belly up due to lousy services, mass exodus to better project sites and it not being financially worthwhile for GeekNet. Put simply, AFAIK, none of these projects sites offer a guarantee that they will not shutdown, go paid only, or otherwise change their services, so I don't think speculation should be a primary factor in deciding on a project site. Agreed as said in another mail, apart that I doubt SF will really die, just maybe become even more crappy by the years. I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't scared by their policy. I can't say I'm personally opposed to Gitorious, but to me it just seems like a stripped-down version of GitHub, missing lots of the cool features. Of all the project hosting sites I've used though, the only two I really dislike are SourceForge and Launchpad followed farther by Google Projects. Well, again, I have no real opinion on this, apart that yeah, GitHub *seems* (haven't tested it) to have more cool features. I was suggesting something else only because of the speculations about GitHub's future ;) Anyway, I think we should wait for Nick's opinion, and probably again Enrico and Frank ones about the BT stuff. Cheers, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 05/09/11 17:16, Colomban Wendling wrote: Maybe, need to check but might not be that painful (BTW, don't GitHub offers a SF BT import feature? :D) It wouldn't surprise me if it does have such a feature (or script available somewhere). Alternatively, I could probably hack something together in Python using this[1] and this[2]. [1] https://sourceforge.net/export/sf_tracker_export.php?group_id=153444atid=787791 [2] http://develop.github.com/p/issues.html Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:53:21 +0200, Jiří wrote: 2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:51 +1000, Lex wrote: 2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote: One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Sure. Does anyone know how to do this? Adding a hook script to forward the commits wouldn't be a problem, I just don't know how to do this. Sourceforge SVN seems to be limited to just the four hook scripts they provide, and non of them do this :-( But we have git.geany.org. The mirror GIT repositories are synced from SVN and the sync is triggered by commit mails. So, we do have a kind of our own commit hook, from SVN as well as from GIT. I just don't know what I should do in the hook :). Hi Enrico, in principle you have to put something like git push --mirror your_github_repository under .git/hooks/post-receive (in the local geany repository). When creating the github repository, you should create a new public/private key pair and make sure that the keys are available for the user who runs the git command. If you have multiple keys or there are several users, you may use this technique: Thanks for the information. However, this sounds like more work than I can effort to do. I just don't want to start with this and then it delays to ever like many other things I started (shame on me, but working on it :D). If anyone has time to write such a script, I'd be happy to include it as a hook script. Btw, we already have a GIT mirror at repo.or.cz: http://repo.or.cz/w/geany-mirror.git Not sure if that helps anything. To the general GIT discussion: I don't mind whether we switch or not. It is at least initially a lot of work for the change but that might be worth in the long run, I can't judge this. If Nick, Frank and Colomban want to, then let's go. I won't vote for or against it. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgp3fWauX6ny5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Am 02.05.2011 03:33, schrieb Matthew Brush: [1] https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support [2] https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support Ah, that was what I was asking for in my other mail. However, it seems not very ideal for SVN users. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:33, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 02.05.2011 00:18, schrieb Jiří Techet: Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch (it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much enthusiasm from the core developers for the move so it's better if people who use git have at least an up-to-date git mirror from which they can create their private branches. The core developers don't show very much enthusiasm since a while *in general*. Well, that's not entirely true I admit, Colomban is doing a great job and Nick has been more active recently too. But my general feeling, that the community around is more active these days, remains. But the question of whether to switch to git or not has to be decided by the very core developers (Enrico, Nick). Without their decision all our discussion is pointless because the switch just won't happen. So direct question: Enrico, Nick, what's your opinion on the git switch? As Matthew said, it seems that it's possible to access a github repository both via svn and git so both the current workflow and git-based workflow should be possible. Of course I'll try to help with whatever I can during the migration. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 05/02/11 15:43, Jiří Techet wrote: So direct question: Enrico, Nick, what's your opinion on the git switch? As Matthew said, it seems that it's possible to access a github repository both via svn and git so both the current workflow and git-based workflow should be possible. Of course I'll try to help with whatever I can during the migration. Don't forget Colomban as well, who, AFAIK, likes/uses mostly Git. Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Am 30.04.2011 11:52, schrieb Enrico Tröger: But we have git.geany.org. The mirror GIT repositories are synced from SVN and the sync is triggered by commit mails. So, we do have a kind of our own commit hook, from SVN as well as from GIT. I just don't know what I should do in the hook :). Assuming the current git mirror does git svn rebase upon the hook, you could extend the script to do the git push afterwards (according to Jiri's [1] command). You need an intermediate git mirror which does the svn rebase anyway, I don't think github can offer that, but it doesn't necessarily need to be publicly available. [1]: is it OK if I write your name that way? I don't know how to enter the characters on the keyboard. If not, I'm sorry. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 23:46, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 30.04.2011 11:48, schrieb Matthew Brush: I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches from there, etc.? If it's only going to be another read-only git mirror, it's kind of pointless. I don't mean to say that it's a bad idea to have the official Geany source available on various projects sites to fork/hack on and stuff, just that it doesn't address the problem being discussed at all. I agree it's not as useful, but I disagree that it'd be pointless. We can still benefit from the social coding aspects of github, including but not limited to an overview over the forks, pull requests between forks. I would greatly love to see that, as I'm subscribed to a number forks by now :) Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch (it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much enthusiasm from the core developers for the move so it's better if people who use git have at least an up-to-date git mirror from which they can create their private branches. BTW: is there some possibility to have an svn mirror of a git repo. Perhaps if you have admin access to the bare svn repo? I guess you could git svn dcommit from the post-receive hook if you have access to the git repository. But I guess it works for simple commits only and not merges and so on. (To your question regarding writing my name - I write it that way myself too because I'm lazy to switch to Czech keyboard so I guess it's OK ;-) Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote: One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Sure. Does anyone know how to do this? Adding a hook script to forward the commits wouldn't be a problem, I just don't know how to do this. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgplJn1v1y4aZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote: One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Sure. Does anyone know how to do this? Adding a hook script to forward the commits wouldn't be a problem, I just don't know how to do this. Regards, Enrico Sourceforge SVN seems to be limited to just the four hook scripts they provide, and non of them do this :-( Cheers Lex -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 04/30/11 02:07, Enrico Tröger wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote: One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Sure. Does anyone know how to do this? Adding a hook script to forward the commits wouldn't be a problem, I just don't know how to do this. I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches from there, etc.? If it's only going to be another read-only git mirror, it's kind of pointless. I don't mean to say that it's a bad idea to have the official Geany source available on various projects sites to fork/hack on and stuff, just that it doesn't address the problem being discussed at all. Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:51 +1000, Lex wrote: 2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote: One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Sure. Does anyone know how to do this? Adding a hook script to forward the commits wouldn't be a problem, I just don't know how to do this. Sourceforge SVN seems to be limited to just the four hook scripts they provide, and non of them do this :-( But we have git.geany.org. The mirror GIT repositories are synced from SVN and the sync is triggered by commit mails. So, we do have a kind of our own commit hook, from SVN as well as from GIT. I just don't know what I should do in the hook :). Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgp4iqBDJzxc5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Hi Matthew, you couldn't express my feelings better. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote: - No need to maintain changelog and authors files Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they can be automated? Seems not too hard with git log and some shell script[1]. I think the original thread also mentions a way (or that it's possible). http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog - Proper attribution, blame and history for contributors and not having to put Thanks in all the commit messages. Still needed as above. There would be no need to use Thanks in each commit message, since the author of the commit is the person who wrote the code in it, for example[2] where I just sent Neil a properly formatted patch of my local commit and he applied it directly, keeping the history in tact. If it needed fixing to get added into the main code, this will also be reflected in the history by the next commits to fix it (and I believe the original thread says another way to do this), so no need for Based on patch by ... in any commit messages either. Just for completeness, sometimes the patch needs to be modified by the maintainer but in these cases it's better to have 2 commits - one containing the original patch and one with the maintainer's changes (especially when the modification actually screws up the original patch). If you were maybe referring to the THANKS file, I would imagine that could be generated automatically as well from the log. From my experience this doesn't work so well because people sometimes send patches from different email addresses. But the THANKS file update can be done just before making a release and it's not the hardest thing to do. - Built-in Wiki software That could be useful to take some load off Enrico and his servers, currently the project still depends heavily on his resources. That was my thought. Does your somescript mean that both sites could work for an interim period with the old one being deprecated for later removal? I believe so, yes. I'm no expert on these things, but I guess there must be some way to mirror either the SVN to Git or vice versa by using some hooks or something. Another way probably is using git-svn and dcommit to SVN and then push them to Git. Google turns up this[3], amongst others. Geany already updates its official git mirror (http://git.geany.org) from SVN so this works and synchronization between git repositories is a matter of setting up a post-receive hook. One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from which they can clone and create their personal branches. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
Nice summary Matthew, As far as I remember it, seems to be accurate. Summary from previous thread: The people in the thread who do not want to switch to Git, or those who don't seem to care either way, are those who have commit access to Subversion on SourceForge. Most (if not all) contributors to Geany are using Git (via git-svn). The workflow for those who don't have commit access on the subversion repository, when contributing to Geany is sub-optimal (to put it politely). SourceForge is painfully slow and the interface for viewing SVN source code online isn't great. Agree with all of the above. I think the reason GitHub/Gitorious is mentioned so much is not only because of the Git in their name, but also because it allows people who don't have commit access to actually be active members in the community, by means of having their public forked repositories, sending merge/pull requests, etc. Whatever host is chosen, it must support non-project users having public forks. Pros from the thread: [...] - No need to maintain changelog and authors files Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they can be automated? - Proper attribution, blame and history for contributors and not having to put Thanks in all the commit messages. Still needed as above. - Built-in Wiki software That could be useful to take some load off Enrico and his servers, currently the project still depends heavily on his resources. Obviously I'm not suggesting that the SourceForge project page is deleted, just switching the main development activity to elsewhere. We could have a git/svn mirror over at SourceForge still, and even keep their bug/feature tracker, though I can't see why, since it's pretty lousy. It really wouldn't be hard either, the whole switch be done in probably 10-15 minutes, maybe 1-2hrs to wait for the history to be imported. There's no real reason it needs to be a big deal either, we could test out another project site and keep it the way it currently is still with not much extra effort, just someone/somescript needs to push to the new project page after Does your somescript mean that both sites could work for an interim period with the old one being deprecated for later removal? Cheers Lex ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)
On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote: - No need to maintain changelog and authors files Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they can be automated? Seems not too hard with git log and some shell script[1]. I think the original thread also mentions a way (or that it's possible). - Proper attribution, blame and history for contributors and not having to put Thanks in all the commit messages. Still needed as above. There would be no need to use Thanks in each commit message, since the author of the commit is the person who wrote the code in it, for example[2] where I just sent Neil a properly formatted patch of my local commit and he applied it directly, keeping the history in tact. If it needed fixing to get added into the main code, this will also be reflected in the history by the next commits to fix it (and I believe the original thread says another way to do this), so no need for Based on patch by ... in any commit messages either. If you were maybe referring to the THANKS file, I would imagine that could be generated automatically as well from the log. - Built-in Wiki software That could be useful to take some load off Enrico and his servers, currently the project still depends heavily on his resources. That was my thought. Does your somescript mean that both sites could work for an interim period with the old one being deprecated for later removal? I believe so, yes. I'm no expert on these things, but I guess there must be some way to mirror either the SVN to Git or vice versa by using some hooks or something. Another way probably is using git-svn and dcommit to SVN and then push them to Git. Google turns up this[3], amongst others. [1] http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog [2] http://scintilla.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/scintilla/scintilla/rev/874b84aa77b3 [3] http://www.codeography.com/2010/03/17/howto-mirror-git-to-subversion.html Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote: This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. I doubt we want that. Who should be our Linus? I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any advantage for Geany with such a scenario. I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their changes and patches and whatever. I agree. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpvopvZ8PlnZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:15:03 +0200 Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote: So the question should rather be WHETHER to move and not WHERE to move - the latter is much less important at this point. The only thing I'd like to see is that one of the repositories makes it possible to create personal clones for external developers. I dislike to more at the moment, even I see there is a number of votes for git etc. However, I suggest this: Why not keeping one of the git mirrors up to date and build it up to some kind of official mirror with a maintainer (or a group of), who is pulling from possibles clones etc and pushing the patches well formated and revisited to geany-devel mailing list so it can be inlcduied to subversion main tree. This would be similar to subsystem maintainer inside Kernel-development-process. Quiet important here is that we need to avoid too many branches existing without sending patches upstream. However, If this is working well, we could think about later really to switch. What do you think about? Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgppixSoLFqqH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:16:17 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: I cannot answer any of the questions because I also have no experience in running a git project. But what I know is that we are actually less depending on a hoster. Because of git's DVCS nature, everyone has the complete repo locally and can work offline with it. Git hosting is something for convinience (i.e. web interface for source browsing). We wouldn't actually *need* a hoster at all, but of course it would be nice (with hosting, cloning other people's repos is simplified extremely). This is one of the strong points of git. Even if the hoster is not very dependable, since the actual repo is on everyone's system, the hoster could be dead for a few days or we could switch the hoster easily without losing anything. That's true. However you cannot host-switch the master tree for a project each week ;) Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpJSmfq31xuM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:42:03 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 13.06.2010 13:08, schrieb Enrico Tröger: I really don't like github and gitorious. Also, as I said I'm not that familiar with GIT but I don't see why features like forking or such should be done by a hosting service, aren't these all features of the VCS itself? Yes and no. Forking at the hoster side has several advantages. You get a free host for the remote, the forks are categorized and associated with the mainline, the actual changes in the fork are visible for anyone (most importantly for the maintainers of mainline). And you get the forks of several contributors collected in a single place making it easier for people to pick out their favorite changes etc. This could also be done by a self-hosted solution as in most cases the local branch/folk is knowing of its parents. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpYcB73Jb9z3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:55:09 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 19.06.2010 17:50, schrieb Frank Lanitz: That's true. However you cannot host-switch the master tree for a project each week ;) You sure can. Well, I'm afraid users will not honor that ;) Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpkmeKOCXOmX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 19.06.2010 17:56, schrieb Frank Lanitz: On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:55:09 +0200 Thomas Martitzthomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 19.06.2010 17:50, schrieb Frank Lanitz: That's true. However you cannot host-switch the master tree for a project each week ;) You sure can. Well, I'm afraid users will not honor that ;) Sure, but it will not happen unless all hosters start acting up at the same time. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:42:56 +0100 Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:22:05 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). I agree. Same here. Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). To be honest, it would be some hassle for me to switch. I only have experience using Git locally, no push/pull/branches. But that experience was great, I like the tool. So I think as Lex has suggested, that we shouldn't switch right now. Maybe some time in the future. I don't have time ATM to learn Git/investigate switching. Also as regards sourceforge, I agree with Enrico that we want to stay with them for now at least. I completely second this. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpUCoZKtmRAZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Saturday 19,June,2010 11:22 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:59:11 +0800 Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote: This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. I doubt we want that. Who should be our Linus? I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any advantage for Geany with such a scenario. I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their changes and patches and whatever. Regards, Enrico Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as best as I can: We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can push new commits there. Contributors:- 1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net 2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new features they implement. 3. They then submit these back to you via: * Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted properly for this purpose. * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree hosted at sourceforge.net. This is correct, but I don't see any advantage of using git/bzr, mercural, bitkeeper or whatever in favor of subversion of doing this. Point #2 isn't really feasible with svn, for more than one patch at a time. And then these patches can get outdated and fail to apply, requiring the person who wrote the patch to keep maintaining it until the patch is committed. git format-patch is the solution to the aforementioned problems, since it can generate a series of patches, each with a suitable commit message, from a series of commits since the patches have some hashes included within them so that git can fall back on a 3-way merge when applying these patches if all else fails. Of course, git format-patch can be done with geany still using git-svn, but how many developers do you want to see using git-svn before switching from svn to git? I think most of us already do, in geany's case. Hence, this discussion. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 19.06.2010 18:22, schrieb Chow Loong Jin: On Saturday 19,June,2010 11:22 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:59:11 +0800 Chow Loong Jinhyper...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200 Enrico Trögerenrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote: This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. I doubt we want that. Who should be our Linus? I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any advantage for Geany with such a scenario. I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their changes and patches and whatever. Regards, Enrico Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as best as I can: We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can push new commits there. Contributors:- 1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net 2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new features they implement. 3. They then submit these back to you via: * Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted properly for this purpose. * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree hosted at sourceforge.net. This is correct, but I don't see any advantage of using git/bzr, mercural, bitkeeper or whatever in favor of subversion of doing this. Point #2 isn't really feasible with svn, for more than one patch at a time. And then these patches can get outdated and fail to apply, requiring the person who wrote the patch to keep maintaining it until the patch is committed. The main flaw of SVN IMO. It basically forces you to have multiple checkouts, each having the double size of the source code. Of course, git format-patch can be done with geany still using git-svn, but how many developers do you want to see using git-svn before switching from svn to git? I think most of us already do, in geany's case. Hence, this discussion. Yes, that's the point. Many of us mess with git-svn (an additional hurdle) while we could simply switch to git and make it easier for most people. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:21:49 +0200 Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 17:42, Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:22:05 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). I agree. Same here. Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). To be honest, it would be some hassle for me to switch. I only have experience using Git locally, no push/pull/branches. But that experience was great, I like the tool. So I think as Lex has suggested, that we shouldn't switch right now. Maybe some time in the future. I don't have time ATM to learn Git/investigate switching. Also as regards sourceforge, I agree with Enrico that we want to stay with them for now at least. Just for those interested, I have created a complete import of your SVN repo to git. The result is here: http://gitorious.org/geany/complete Nice. 1. You have to create the authors file with names and email addresses of the committers. Each line has the form: committer = full name em...@address.com This was easy because most of them are already present in your git mirror. The missing ones were: kretek Is an old nick of mine. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpAKXUqZzy0v.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 17:42, Nick Treleaven nick.trelea...@btinternet.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:22:05 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). I agree. Same here. Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). To be honest, it would be some hassle for me to switch. I only have experience using Git locally, no push/pull/branches. But that experience was great, I like the tool. So I think as Lex has suggested, that we shouldn't switch right now. Maybe some time in the future. I don't have time ATM to learn Git/investigate switching. Also as regards sourceforge, I agree with Enrico that we want to stay with them for now at least. Just for those interested, I have created a complete import of your SVN repo to git. The result is here: http://gitorious.org/geany/complete It contains all the branches and all the tags you have created (many of the branches could be deleted I guess) and the whole history since 2005. Here's what I did (may be useful if you decide to migrate to git in the future). Basically I followed the instructions here: http://blog.woobling.org/2009/06/git-svn-abandon.html and downloaded the conversion scripts. 1. You have to create the authors file with names and email addresses of the committers. Each line has the form: committer = full name em...@address.com This was easy because most of them are already present in your git mirror. The missing ones were: (no author) clytie kretek statc (no author) was used for the initial import so I used Enrico here. I think I found the correct name and email for clytie, but I had no idea for kretek and statc so I used just a fake name and email for them. 2. Run git svn clone --authors-file=authors.txt --prefix=svn/ --stdlayout https://geany.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/geany (wait about 90 minutes until everything gets downloaded) 3. Make proper tags and branches: cd geany git svn-abandon-fix-refs git svn-abandon-cleanup The result could probably be manually improved for some merges but I don't know if it's worth the work. 4. Push the result: git remote add origin g...@gitorious.org:geany/complete.git git push --all git push --tags That's it. Just a few more comments related to the possible switch. First, just an observation - the people who said they don't mind are those who have write access to SVN. I agree that for them the switch is much less important - they can create their branches to develop and back up the work in progress and for their own development the current workflow is OK. The current situation is worse for external contributors who don't submit their patches so often to have SVN access. They either don't have their work backed up, or they have to create their own repository e.g. at gitorious as I did. When they finish their work, they can't just tell please pull from here but have to submit their patches by email. This is harder for the maintainers too - they have to manually apply the patches from the email instead of just git pull. Finally, it will be the maintainer who makes the commit and the information about the original committer is lost with SVN - with git you see every single commit author (this means you have to add some thanks to to the commit message for SVN - this work would be eliminated with git). Finally, you can forget about updating ChangeLog - this can be generated automatically by git (GNOME libraries usually have one pre-git ChangeLog and then a changelog automatically generated from the git history during make distcheck). So what I want to say here is that while the core developer's development work won't be affected by the switch much, the collaboration with external developers will improve considerably. On the other hand you are right - git is a bit harder to use and there will be many doh moments. The learning curve is steeper that with SVN but when you learn it (I really don't want to make an impression I'm an expert here - git still surprises me sometimes), you'll realize git is a very powerful and helpful tool. There has been some discussion about changing the bug tracker at the same time - I would make it an independent issue. My personal opinion is that you should just stay with sourceforge - moving the whole bug tracker somewhere else is too much manual work rewarded
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
snip Just a few more comments related to the possible switch. First, just an observation - the people who said they don't mind are those who have write access to SVN. Thats a fair comment, probably because they are the ones who will be most affected by the change, who will use it the most, and will have to change their workflow the most. Humans don't like change, even (or especially) programmers who are exposed to lots of it. I agree that for them the switch is much less important - they can create their branches to develop and back up the work in progress and for their own development the current workflow is OK. The current situation is worse for external contributors who don't submit their patches so often to have SVN access. They either don't have their work backed up, or they have to create their own repository e.g. at gitorious as I did. When they finish their work, they can't just tell please pull from here but have to submit their patches by email. This is harder for the maintainers too - they have to manually apply the patches from the email instead of just git pull. This workflow is only likely when changes are submitted by well known and experienced submitters. Otherwise it will be import to local clone, check and edit it some, then commit and push upstream, so the problems you describe below will still exist AFAICT. Many patches get the response, committed but I changed xxx. Also you don't want to pull every daily backup commit from the user into the main repository. Finally, it will be the maintainer who makes the commit and the information about the original committer is lost with SVN - with git you see every single commit author (this means you have to add some thanks to to the commit message for SVN - this work would be eliminated with git). Finally, you can forget about updating ChangeLog - this can be generated automatically by git (GNOME libraries usually have one pre-git ChangeLog and then a changelog automatically generated from the git history during make distcheck). So what I want to say here is that while the core developer's development work won't be affected by the switch much, the collaboration with external developers will improve considerably. On the other hand you are right - git is a bit harder to use and there will be many doh moments. The learning curve is steeper that with SVN but when you learn it (I really don't want to make an impression I'm an expert here - git still surprises me sometimes), Now thats the last thing you want from a VCS, surprise, what you want is stability, ease of use and simplicity, power and speed are nice to haves only if the preceding are there. I understand from reading the Advanced Git book that it is reasonably hard to actually lose data, but it also looks rather hard to recover from a mistake by an inexperienced user. you'll realize git is a very powerful and helpful tool. There has been some discussion about changing the bug tracker at the same time - I would make it an independent issue. My personal opinion is that you should just stay with sourceforge - moving the whole bug tracker somewhere else is too much manual work rewarded by too little gain. Good point. Cheers Lex Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:47:37 +0200, Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:38, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com wrote: Bandwidth issues. If your connection to your git host sucks (sourceforge.net particularly sucks from Asian countries) then you want Sourceforge tends to have bad days here too (Czech Republic) - I suspect it's a global problem. Yepp, its well known that sf is not always the fastest plattform. Unfortunately. Cheers, Frank ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On 14 June 2010 15:41, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 14.06.2010 03:58, schrieb Lex Trotman: I guess we should also consider that no matter how easy we think it will be there will probably be some disruption during the changeover so it should be now (immediately after a release) or not until the next release, which I think is probably better so that the hosting and workflow issues can be worked through some more. Jiri, hold that Gitorious project to keep out cyber squatters. 0.19 is just out, why wait for the next release? 0.19 is so recent, waiting for the next release will have no advantage (because we are in the same situation then as today). Can you elaborate that please? Hi Thomas, Sure, multi part answer. 1. Yes you are right, it doesn't have to be *immediately* after a release, just before the heavy activity approaching a release. 2. What might be better if there is some delay? Because I don't think we have got a good handle on host, bug tracker etc. The responses were far from unanimous for a switch to Git, though no one was heavily against it. As far as I can tell Jiri is the only one who has responded who has actual experience running a Git project and that is only on Gitoroius. So I'd ask: * Does anyone else run a Git project, which host and whats the experience? * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? * And does anyone have experience using any other DVCS and hosting service that would make them recommend it, or recommend against it? * should the bug tracker be moved? Can it be done without losing anything? There are rather a lot of options listed here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting Has anyone used any? The important things we need to know about a hosting service are: * likely stability, some have gone offline during the GFC, but this is hard to judge * performance for a good range of users in a good range of locations * reliability, low downtime * features, hosting clones, bug tracking ? My answer is that I only run Git locally, so I cannot add any information. Who can? I'm happy to collate the replies. So far, Jiri I take it you are happy with Gitorious, it has the features, but some don't like its style, does anyone have performance problems with it? Whats its reliability like? For Github, some really don't like its style :-) Cheers Lex Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
I cannot answer any of the questions because I also have no experience in running a git project. But what I know is that we are actually less depending on a hoster. Because of git's DVCS nature, everyone has the complete repo locally and can work offline with it. Git hosting is something for convinience (i.e. web interface for source browsing). We wouldn't actually *need* a hoster at all, but of course it would be nice (with hosting, cloning other people's repos is simplified extremely). This is one of the strong points of git. Even if the hoster is not very dependable, since the actual repo is on everyone's system, the hoster could be dead for a few days or we could switch the hoster easily without losing anything. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:47:57 +1000 Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2010 15:41, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 14.06.2010 03:58, schrieb Lex Trotman: I guess we should also consider that no matter how easy we think it will be there will probably be some disruption during the changeover so it should be now (immediately after a release) or not until the next release, which I think is probably better so that the hosting and workflow issues can be worked through some more. Jiri, hold that Gitorious project to keep out cyber squatters. 0.19 is just out, why wait for the next release? 0.19 is so recent, waiting for the next release will have no advantage (because we are in the same situation then as today). Can you elaborate that please? Hi Thomas, Sure, multi part answer. 1. Yes you are right, it doesn't have to be *immediately* after a release, just before the heavy activity approaching a release. 2. What might be better if there is some delay? Because I don't think we have got a good handle on host, bug tracker etc. The responses were far from unanimous for a switch to Git, though no one was heavily against it. As far as I can tell Jiri is the only one who has responded who has actual experience running a Git project and that is only on Gitoroius. So I'd ask: * Does anyone else run a Git project, which host and whats the experience? I run a git project on github.com and gitorious.org, but since it's a single-man project that isn't ready for public consumption, it's just a backup of my git repository in the event that all my local copies of my git repository disappear at the same time. I have push access to http://gitorious.org/banshee-community-extensions and I have nothing bad to say about it. I don't use the web interface much, honestly speaking, except for linking the commit hash of a certain bugfix to a bug report. I just mostly fetch, pull, and push. I think something that might be worth noting is that we should pick a host that has support http:// fetching, and even better, smart http://. * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? In Singapore and Malaysia, gitorious.org and github.com have been extremely stable and fast, unlike sourceforge.net. * And does anyone have experience using any other DVCS and hosting service that would make them recommend it, or recommend against it? I've used bzr before, But I would recommend against it, as bzr still seems to have the occasional repository format migration which, if things go wrong, can cause your repositories to suddenly become unmergeable. Also, it's one branch per repository, which leads to as many copies of the project as you have branches (i.e. not so cheap branching). * should the bug tracker be moved? Can it be done without losing anything? I'm against any bug tracker that lacks either a read/writeable web interface or a read/writeable e-mail interface. (I like launchpad.net's bug tracker, but that's just me.) There are rather a lot of options listed here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting Has anyone used any? The important things we need to know about a hosting service are: * likely stability, some have gone offline during the GFC, but this is hard to judge * performance for a good range of users in a good range of locations * reliability, low downtime * features, hosting clones, bug tracking ? My answer is that I only run Git locally, so I cannot add any information. Who can? I'm happy to collate the replies. So far, Jiri I take it you are happy with Gitorious, it has the features, but some don't like its style, does anyone have performance problems with it? Whats its reliability like? For Github, some really don't like its style :-) I don't really care about whichever hosting service we use, as long as it has: * A good and stable internet connection to various places around the world (I particularly care about Malaysia and Singapore). * A fairly usable web interface that supports showing logs, browsing the tree, showing diffs for commits. (github.com and gitorious.org satisfy me in this aspect). * git:// read-only access, git+ssh:// push access, http:// read-only access. http:// push access would be a plus, though. P.S. What's GFC? -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
I think something that might be worth noting is that we should pick a host that has support http:// fetching, and even better, smart http://. Good point * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? In Singapore and Malaysia, gitorious.org and github.com have been extremely stable and fast, unlike sourceforge.net. * And does anyone have experience using any other DVCS and hosting service that would make them recommend it, or recommend against it? I've used bzr before, But I would recommend against it, as bzr still seems to have the occasional repository format migration which, if things go wrong, can cause your repositories to suddenly become unmergeable. Also, it's one branch per repository, which leads to as many copies of the project as you have branches (i.e. not so cheap branching). * should the bug tracker be moved? Can it be done without losing anything? I'm against any bug tracker that lacks either a read/writeable web interface or a read/writeable e-mail interface. (I like launchpad.net's bug tracker, but that's just me.) There are rather a lot of options listed here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting Has anyone used any? The important things we need to know about a hosting service are: * likely stability, some have gone offline during the GFC, but this is hard to judge * performance for a good range of users in a good range of locations * reliability, low downtime * features, hosting clones, bug tracking ? My answer is that I only run Git locally, so I cannot add any information. Who can? I'm happy to collate the replies. So far, Jiri I take it you are happy with Gitorious, it has the features, but some don't like its style, does anyone have performance problems with it? Whats its reliability like? For Github, some really don't like its style :-) I don't really care about whichever hosting service we use, as long as it has: * A good and stable internet connection to various places around the world (I particularly care about Malaysia and Singapore). * A fairly usable web interface that supports showing logs, browsing the tree, showing diffs for commits. (github.com and gitorious.org satisfy me in this aspect). * git:// read-only access, git+ssh:// push access, http:// read-only access. http:// push access would be a plus, though. P.S. What's GFC? Oops sorry, non-computer acronym, global financial crisis -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:47, Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2010 15:41, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 14.06.2010 03:58, schrieb Lex Trotman: I guess we should also consider that no matter how easy we think it will be there will probably be some disruption during the changeover so it should be now (immediately after a release) or not until the next release, which I think is probably better so that the hosting and workflow issues can be worked through some more. Jiri, hold that Gitorious project to keep out cyber squatters. 0.19 is just out, why wait for the next release? 0.19 is so recent, waiting for the next release will have no advantage (because we are in the same situation then as today). Can you elaborate that please? Hi Thomas, Sure, multi part answer. 1. Yes you are right, it doesn't have to be *immediately* after a release, just before the heavy activity approaching a release. 2. What might be better if there is some delay? Because I don't think we have got a good handle on host, bug tracker etc. The responses were far from unanimous for a switch to Git, though no one was heavily against it. As far as I can tell Jiri is the only one who has responded who has actual experience running a Git project and that is only on Gitoroius. So I'd ask: * Does anyone else run a Git project, which host and whats the experience? * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? * And does anyone have experience using any other DVCS and hosting service that would make them recommend it, or recommend against it? * should the bug tracker be moved? Can it be done without losing anything? There are rather a lot of options listed here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting Has anyone used any? The important things we need to know about a hosting service are: * likely stability, some have gone offline during the GFC, but this is hard to judge * performance for a good range of users in a good range of locations * reliability, low downtime * features, hosting clones, bug tracking ? In fact, it is a much less critical decision which host to chose than it may seem. After creating the repository, the main developers don't have to visit the web pages of the host any more. The only thing they have to do is to push the changes to all the git hosts geany will use (it could be sourceforge, github and gitorious in parallel - it will be up to the contributors which one they'll chose [probably github or gitorious because these can host their own clones]). This can even be automated if the push is made on your own server and then propagated by some script to all the mirrors. The web pages of the host will be visited only by the contributors who want to create their own clone (and from this point they can also forget about the web interface). There are features like merge request at gitorious that notify the maintainter about the merge from a contributor, but this can be disabled so the only way the contributor will ask for merging his work will be through the mailing list and publishing url of his repository (wherever it is located). Git is a distributed VCS - it doesn't matter where the user pulls from - whether it's some host like gitorious, the official repository, or a local clone on your machine - the mirrors should just be kept up to date. And for instance if github is not officially supported and there is some github lover, nobody prevents him from pulling from the official repository and pushing to a github clone so he keeps it more or less up to date (I did the same with the current geany gitorious repository [I just don't keep it up to date, but I could of course] - there will be no difference for people if they pull from there or your official git mirror). And if you dislike one host and want to move to another one, you'll just move the repository there - all the user's local clones will be still valid, they'll just have to start pulling from a different url. So the question should rather be WHETHER to move and not WHERE to move - the latter is much less important at this point. The only thing I'd like to see is that one of the repositories makes it possible to create personal clones for external developers. Cheers, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
I believe I have some relevant info about github. I have a repository at github. http://www.github.com/danmar/cppcheck I used sourceforge+svn when I started cppcheck. But then I moved the code repository to github. For the code hosting I think github is really good. The code review features are really useful. It is simple to make forks. The biggest disadvantages with github is that its bug tracker is not good enough and there is no release management. * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? 30 people have contributed to cppcheck according to ohloh. Most of those contributors only provide a few patches and nothing more. I would say that github has consistently better performance than sourceforge. Not just the repository but also the webpages. It has happened that github has been down but in my feeling it has just been temporary technical problems. Best regards, Daniel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Sorry for any noise this post might add! Long response follows. TL;DR: Use Gitorious and Trac. On 06/14/2010 12:47 AM, Lex Trotman wrote: As far as I can tell Jiri is the only one who has responded who has actual experience running a Git project and that is only on Gitoroius. So I'd ask: * Does anyone else run a Git project, which host and whats the experience? * How many people contribute to one, and what hosting service do they use and what is the experience, is performance consistent and better than Sourceforge SVN, all around the world? * And does anyone have experience using any other DVCS and hosting service that would make them recommend it, or recommend against it? * should the bug tracker be moved? Can it be done without losing anything? I have experience with Mercurial (I manage a public repo containing several of my personal projects, and also a private repo for internal projects at work.) And while the hosting is all 'self-contained' (e.g. the public repo is hosted directly out of Apache with hgweb.cgi, and the private repo is the built-in hgweb daemon) I've grown to love the minimalism of Mercurial's gitweb style. I've also recently launched a new project on GoogleCode's hosting platform. I cannot yet comment on how well their service works. It seems it's not possible to simply clone hosted repos like with gitorious, for example. There are rather a lot of options listed here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting Has anyone used any? The important things we need to know about a hosting service are: * likely stability, some have gone offline during the GFC, but this is hard to judge * performance for a good range of users in a good range of locations * reliability, low downtime * features, hosting clones, bug tracking ? In that list, I've heard of only a few of them. I would suggest avoiding github (total personal opinion, here; awful web interface, and the network graph visualizer requires Flash, which is purely ridiculous). Both Gitorious and Savannah look great. Gitorious maintains a fairly barebones service for git hosting, and its web interface looks ok. Its shortcoming is that it doesn't integrate a tracker, so it can be difficult to link bugs with their relevant revisions in the repo (of course, you can always do that 'by hand' like you are now, but then that's one advantage of project hosting that you're missing out on!) Savannah's main interface is really weird, but they do offer *gitweb[2] directly! It also includes issue trackers, mailing lists, and other features that you can ignore if you don't need them. I'm not sure how well these features integrate with each other. It's worth noting that I don't have any actual experience with any of these services. This is just from research I've done in the past while evaluating potential VCSs/hosting services. (I ended up with Mercurial, and GoogleCode.) That said, I only want to pose the following suggestion: Pick a hosting service that encourages development. After revisiting some of these services, that only seems to be Gitorious. That clone repository button is just too good to pass up, and the merge requests feature should come in handy, as well. After a hosting service is settled on, you'll also wanta better issue tracker. (I hate the SourceForge tracker.) My suggestion here is Trac[2] with GitPlugin. If it's possible to host Trac on geany.org, you'll be set; Trac includes a sourceforge2trac.py script to import the tickets from SF. It seems reasonable to offer the source on a hosting platform like Gitorious, and hosting your own tracker that integrates with it directly. * However, gitweb does pose some troubles when it does its generating... spin for a few seconds before giving the information asked for. Pretty typical when browsing the web interface between commit logs and patches. [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/ [2] http://trac.edgewall.org/ attachment: jason_oster.vcf___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 06:50:57 +0200, Thomas wrote: Maybe it would be a good idea to find some hosting which also has a bug tracker, otherwise it would seem strange to stick to sourceforge for bugs but XY.com for the code hosting. Has anyone tried the sourceforge git hosting? Ah, that raises the topic of using other bug tracking tools than Sourceforge's one :). We discussed this somewhere in the past already, to make it short: Sourceforge's bug tracker isn't that intuitive nor fast nor ideal. But it has the big advantage people don't need to register to file bug reports while it is still mostly spam-free (no idea why but it's nice). I didn't see any alternative so far while I'd like to switch to bugzilla actually. But well, there are more important problems out there. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:05:26 +1000, Lex wrote: As I'm looking at potential hosting services for the first time, Gitorious and Github don't actually look to me to be any more socially oriented than sourceforge, both seem to emphasise hosting and then offer other apps as well just like sourceforge. Certainly their public face tries to be friendlier whereas sourceforge is a bit friendlier? Really? To me they seem bloated and sort of unusable. github's interface is totally unusable, the dynamic loading of the directory contents sucks and the overall usage of their repo browser is awful, IMHO. Similar for gitorious though it's not as bad as github. In fact, I do like Sourceforge's plainness or better, the plainness of git-web. Also, IMO cgit is a completely sufficient web interface. Ok, this was only about the git web interface of the hosing services but still. I really don't like github and gitorious. Also, as I said I'm not that familiar with GIT but I don't see why features like forking or such should be done by a hosting service, aren't these all features of the VCS itself? Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote: This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. I doubt we want that. Who should be our Linus? I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any advantage for Geany with such a scenario. I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their changes and patches and whatever. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. 2010/6/13 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:05:26 +1000, Lex wrote: As I'm looking at potential hosting services for the first time, Gitorious and Github don't actually look to me to be any more socially oriented than sourceforge, both seem to emphasise hosting and then offer other apps as well just like sourceforge. Certainly their public face tries to be friendlier whereas sourceforge is a bit friendlier? Really? To me they seem bloated and sort of unusable. github's interface is totally unusable, the dynamic loading of the directory contents sucks and the overall usage of their repo browser is awful, IMHO. Similar for gitorious though it's not as bad as github. Ok, this was only about the git web interface of the hosing services but still. I really don't like github and gitorious. Also, as I said I'm not that familiar with GIT but I don't see why features like forking or such should be done by a hosting service, aren't these all features of the VCS itself? Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:11:05 +0200% Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:01:02 +0200 Daniel Marjamäki daniel.marjam...@gmail.com wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). Best regards, Eugene. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:14:57 +0400 Eugene Arshinov earshi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:11:05 +0200% Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:01:02 +0200 Daniel Marjamäki daniel.marjam...@gmail.com wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). I agree. Same here. Cheers, Frank -- Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de pgprmNK4dJfzV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:17:54 +0200, Frank wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:14:57 +0400 Eugene Arshinov earshi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:11:05 +0200% Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:01:02 +0200 Daniel Marjamäki daniel.marjam...@gmail.com wrote: I have a few years of daily experience both with SVN and GIT. We use SVN at work and I use GIT for all my personal projects. I like GIT better than SVN. In my humble opinion you shouldn't switch unless you are unhappy with sourceforge / svn. I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. I'd like to second that. And, while I use local Git repository for Geany, I'm completely happy with git-svn (and my separate SVN branch, of course :). I agree. Same here. Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). Btw, my personal opinion on switching or not doesn't count much at all. The amount of future commits by me will be very small. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 13.06.2010 14:22, schrieb Enrico Tröger: Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). Btw, my personal opinion on switching or not doesn't count much at all. The amount of future commits by me will be very small. Regards, Enrico What would switching actually involve? We could just take over the git mirror which contains the svn history as well, so I expect the actual switch to be little work. IMO sticking to svn doesn't make sense considering that most contributors seem to use git (and git-svn). git-svn has a lot of drawbacks and its slowness is hugely annoying especially when paired with the slow sf svn servers for me. I am generally unhappy with svn and git-svn. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 13.06.2010 14:11, schrieb Frank Lanitz: I agree. For our current development process I don't see any big need to change away from SVN. It will cost a lot of effort with no extra profit adding. Are you sure? I don't think it'll cost much, but it would make working on Geany easier for the git using contributors (which seems to be the majority). The switch makes only sense if more people are using git than svn. If that's not true than we should stick to svn. But if it is, then most people need work arounds which only increase the house-keeping work (meaning there's less time to do actual coding). Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:08:33 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:05:26 +1000, Lex wrote: As I'm looking at potential hosting services for the first time, Gitorious and Github don't actually look to me to be any more socially oriented than sourceforge, both seem to emphasise hosting and then offer other apps as well just like sourceforge. Certainly their public face tries to be friendlier whereas sourceforge is a bit friendlier? Really? To me they seem bloated and sort of unusable. github's interface is totally unusable, the dynamic loading of the directory contents sucks and the overall usage of their repo browser is awful, IMHO. Similar for gitorious though it's not as bad as github. In fact, I do like Sourceforge's plainness or better, the plainness of git-web. Also, IMO cgit is a completely sufficient web interface. Ok, this was only about the git web interface of the hosing services but still. I really don't like github and gitorious. Also, as I said I'm not that familiar with GIT but I don't see why features like forking or such should be done by a hosting service, aren't these all features of the VCS itself? Bandwidth issues. If your connection to your git host sucks (sourceforge.net particularly sucks from Asian countries) then you want to minimize data transfer as much as possible. To clone one repository locally, and then push everything back up involves a significantly larger amount of data transfer than having a branch already cloned remotely, and pushing only the new hashes up. Right now, svn sucks so hard over here that I cannot do a svn checkout from a sourceforge.net hosted mirror without having my connection interrupted. What I end up doing is using my shell account on alioth.debian.net to git svn clone, then git repack -ad to pack it as small as possible, and rsync over the .git directory. And because git-svn is not perfect, I sometimes end up with a repository that is no longer able to dcommit, and have to repeat those steps. That said, I don't actually commit anything to geany, only geany-plugins. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 13.06.2010 17:59, schrieb Chow Loong Jin: Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as best as I can: We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can push new commits there. Contributors:- 1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net 2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new features they implement. 3. They then submit these back to you via: * Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted properly for this purpose. * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree hosted at sourceforge.net. Access control, directly translated from svn: * Anyone who can commit to svn can push to git. * Anyone who can commit to svn can create and modify branches in svn, so let anyone who can push to git create and commit to branches. For purposes of migration to git, I think we can just adopt the model I've proposed above first, and think about any other changes to further reap any benefits git can bring later on. Sounds great to me! :) ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 14:38, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 13.06.2010 14:22, schrieb Enrico Tröger: Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). Btw, my personal opinion on switching or not doesn't count much at all. The amount of future commits by me will be very small. Regards, Enrico What would switching actually involve? We could just take over the git mirror which contains the svn history as well, so I expect the actual switch to be little work. Tags and branches are missing in the git mirror. But it's easy to google out how to completely migrate the svn repository to git. Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:18:45 +0200 Jiří Techet tec...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 14:38, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 13.06.2010 14:22, schrieb Enrico Tröger: Well, if Frank doesn't want to and Nick doesn't mind, we maybe can indeed save us the whole trouble of discussing about switching :). Btw, my personal opinion on switching or not doesn't count much at all. The amount of future commits by me will be very small. Regards, Enrico What would switching actually involve? We could just take over the git mirror which contains the svn history as well, so I expect the actual switch to be little work. Tags and branches are missing in the git mirror. But it's easy to google out how to completely migrate the svn repository to git. Below is a small bash script I found online sometime back for purposes of migrating svn debian package repositories to git. It can be modified (remove the debian/ from git tag) for purposes of porting the tags over. #!/bin/bash for branch in `git branch -r`; do if [ `echo $branch | egrep tags/.+$` ]; then version=`basename $branch` subject=`git log -1 --pretty=format:%s $branch` export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE=`git log -1 --pretty=format:%ci $branch` echo Tag $version [Y/n]? read yesno if [ -z $yesno ] || [ $yesno = Y ]; then git tag -s -f -m $subject debian/$version $branch^ git branch -d -r $branch fi fi done -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:59, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote: This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. I doubt we want that. Who should be our Linus? I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any advantage for Geany with such a scenario. I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their changes and patches and whatever. Regards, Enrico Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as best as I can: Who says that there has to be just one Linus? There can be more Linus' for geany. The main point is that for a new contributor that starts contributing often there doesn't have to be push access to the repository - just one of the Linus' pulls the changes and pushes them. We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can push new commits there. Contributors:- 1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net 2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new features they implement. 3. They then submit these back to you via: * Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted properly for this purpose. * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree hosted at sourceforge.net. This is exactly the way we use git for libchamplain (http://projects.gnome.org/libchamplain/): * there's the official repository at gnome (git://git.gnome.org/libchamplain) - in your case it will be sourceforge * there's a convenience mirror for contributors at gitorious (http://gitorious.org/libchamplain) By the way, I created a geany project at gitorious when submitting my original patches: http://gitorious.org/geany Don't worry, I'll give up the rights for it if you decide for gitorious as a convenience repository for geany ;-). Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 17:38, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com wrote: Bandwidth issues. If your connection to your git host sucks (sourceforge.net particularly sucks from Asian countries) then you want Sourceforge tends to have bad days here too (Czech Republic) - I suspect it's a global problem. (From my experience so far, gitorious works very well here.) One more reason for having an alternative mirror. Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
To reply to several previous posts. * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree hosted at sourceforge.net. I see that ability for anyone to create visible branches that can be easily tested by anyone as the main improvement that switching to Git would give. And teh project admins don't need to do anything to enable them (unless on sourceforge). Note that in reality the workflow for patches not pushed directly by contributors with commit rights, is that they are applied in someones local working directory checked, edited and then committed and pushed, almost never would such changes be direct to the master repo. Sourceforge tends to have bad days here too (Czech Republic) - I suspect it's a global problem. (From my experience so far, gitorious works very well here.) One more reason for having an alternative mirror. SVN seems to work much better here (Australia) lately, maybe its backbone upgrades or that the ISP upgraded my ADSL speed, it used to have horrendous days. For me there is the one possible advantage for Git, but as of now I'm happy either way, I can go on using SVN to the repo and git locally. I guess we should also consider that no matter how easy we think it will be there will probably be some disruption during the changeover so it should be now (immediately after a release) or not until the next release, which I think is probably better so that the hosting and workflow issues can be worked through some more. Jiri, hold that Gitorious project to keep out cyber squatters. Cheers Lex ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 14.06.2010 03:58, schrieb Lex Trotman: I guess we should also consider that no matter how easy we think it will be there will probably be some disruption during the changeover so it should be now (immediately after a release) or not until the next release, which I think is probably better so that the hosting and workflow issues can be worked through some more. Jiri, hold that Gitorious project to keep out cyber squatters. 0.19 is just out, why wait for the next release? 0.19 is so recent, waiting for the next release will have no advantage (because we are in the same situation then as today). Can you elaborate that please? Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Hey there, Le 12/06/2010 16:33, Thomas Martitz a écrit : Hey, so it looks like nobody is really opposed to a git switch and some people would even prefer it (including me), I would like to suggest having a brainstorm on how a switch could look like, and a final decision whether to do the switch or not. I personally like Git more than SVN, but I'm not sure a switch is needed if the ones for those it really change something aren't really interested -- especially since there is already a read-only Git repository. Some points to be considered: 1) I have generally good experience with repo.or.cz for hosting and I like that it concentrates on the bare minimum, but there are other hosters which could be considered. repo.or.cz also makes forking dead simple. - I think there's already a (or the) git mirror on repo.or.cz, I guess that could be made writable and reused. I think it'd be more natural to have the repo on SF since most of Geany stuff is there (bug tracker, SVN, etc.). Apart this, I've no thoughts on this point, I never used any of them for my own. 2) Git offers different ways of doing it. We could go for a more svn-like management where certain people are allowed to push to a main repo or we could do it like the linux kernel where a single person manages the mainline and pulls from all the other guys. That's a maintainer choice but I feel more natural that the main developers (plurial, yes), say Encrico, Nick and Frank, have commit access. This would also allow for change to come in master even if one of the developers have not time to review, and I think that they are wise enough to do the right choices -- they do already anyway. But again, a maintainer's choice. 3) move geany-plugins as well? Would be definitively cool IMO :) I would very much like to see the switch! git-svn is a large pain in the arse. Agreed, even though I think git-svn pretty handy -- but yes, plain Git is better that the gateway hack. Regards, Colomban ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
2010/6/12 Enrico Tröger enrico.troe...@uvena.de: On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:09:49 +0100, Nick wrote: On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:11:48 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Am 09.06.2010 03:40, schrieb Lex Trotman: Sure its easier if everyone is using git, but ATM this is an SVN project. Although most, if not all, geany developers use git, don't they? Do you mean git-svn? The Git repo is not writable. I don't use Git for Geany, but wouldn't mind if everyone else wants to switch to it. Me neither. If we want, we can switch to GIT. Since my experience with GIT is very limited so far, I don't mind which way we want to go and how to organise the repository regarding branch strategies and such. The only requirement/wish I have that we don't host the repository on gitorious or github or such social coding platforms, that sucks. Well, I have no experience with repo.or.cz, but my feeling is that this is just a classical type of hosting where contributors cannot easily create their own clones and have them hosted. Myself I'm a hater of anything that has social in its title and all the chatting nonsense (facebook, skype, ICQ to name some), but gitorious and github are much more useful than social. This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily, then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors) will be harder to realize. Regards, Jiri ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
On 13 June 2010 00:33, Thomas Martitz thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de wrote: Hey, so it looks like nobody is really opposed to a git switch We havn't heard from Enrico yet, wait till after 0.19 release when he has some time to think :-) and some people would even prefer it (including me), I would like to suggest having a brainstorm on how a switch could look like, and a final decision whether to do the switch or not. Yes, good idea Some points to be considered: 1) I have generally good experience with repo.or.cz for hosting and I like that it concentrates on the bare minimum, but there are other hosters which could be considered. repo.or.cz also makes forking dead simple. - I think there's already a (or the) git mirror on repo.or.cz, I guess that could be made writable and reused. Any host must support hosting cloned branches for long lasting changes like sm that need community testing and contribution, most people are on dynamic IP addresses and can't publish a local repo. 2) Git offers different ways of doing it. We could go for a more svn-like management where certain people are allowed to push to a main repo or we could do it like the linux kernel where a single person manages the mainline and pulls from all the other guys. IMO the Linus model only really works if the main committer does it as their main job, works less well for projects where they are part time, even with several people doing it. 3) move geany-plugins as well? I would think so, it would be a big pain to have to use two differing systems when trying to keep these in sync. (at some point I'm sure there will have to be incompatible API changes that require plugin updates) I would very much like to see the switch! git-svn is a large pain in the arse. So much so that I use SVN to talk to the repo and git just locally on the working tree. Cheers Lex Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Git switch
Am 12.06.2010 21:30, schrieb Jiří Techet: Well, I have no experience with repo.or.cz, but my feeling is that this is just a classical type of hosting where contributors cannot easily create their own clones and have them hosted. Myself I'm a hater of anything that has social in its title and all the chatting nonsense (facebook, skype, ICQ to name some), but gitorious and github are much more useful than social. github is quite social, but gitorious seems nice actually. repo.or.cz has the bare minimum, it's just meant for hosting (and thus doesn't offer a tracker of some sort). But cloning is dead simple. You click on fork, and after a few seconds you'll see the forked repo it has created for you (so you can clone it), which is automatically hosted by repo.or.cz as a child project. Maybe it would be a good idea to find some hosting which also has a bug tracker, otherwise it would seem strange to stick to sourceforge for bugs but XY.com for the code hosting. Has anyone tried the sourceforge git hosting? Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
