Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:40 PM Markus Neteler wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:58 PM Vaclav Petras > wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 4:02 PM Markus Neteler wrote: > >> > >> > >> RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub > >> https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub > > > > Looks great. Thanks! > > > > One thing it lacks are best practices for using Git. Git is not > Subversion and we just can't use it as Subversion. > > Please suggest a text snippet to add there (or add directly). > Added. > >> It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a > >> continuous mirror on GitLab.com. > > > > How realistic is the continuous mirror? I know GitLab has migration > tools, but does it have sync as well? > > https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html > " > Repository mirroring allows for mirroring of repositories to and from > external sources. It can be used to mirror branches, tags, and commits > between repositories. > A repository mirror at GitLab will be updated automatically. You can > also manually trigger an update at most once every 5 minutes. > " > > ... looks fine. > The mirroring covers only the code, but not the issues which we are also migrating. The migration does cover them, but the problem is the guarantee of being able to do the migration when needed. A periodical backup from GitHub would be probably fine. ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: Zenodo and versioned DOI for GRASS releases
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Martin Landa wrote: > st 17. 4. 2019 v 16:29 odesílatel Markus Neteler napsal: > > Please check our work already done: > > I have reconstructed the releases back to 3.2 including time stamps at file > > level. > > > > > > https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy > > note that this repo lack releases [0] (=git tags). This need to be > fixed. Good point. Fixed. > Compare with grass repo [1]. Ma > > [0] https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/releases > [1] https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass/releases Enjoy the "new" branches https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/branches and releases https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/releases cheers Markus -- Markus Neteler, PhD https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software https://grass.osgeo.org https://courses.neteler.org/blog ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
1+ since we have an exit strategy if GitHub becomes too commercial. Michael C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science Arizona State University voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu On Apr 7, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Markus Neteler mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>> wrote: Hi PSC, a months has passed since the publication of the draft RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.osgeo.org_grass_wiki_RFC_6-5FMigrationGitHub=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=ZFdNItSY-vZfmG2phTQm2mCpnH0h8tQuydlwxNFLKdE=RMXSrcrPAxQCW4zlEAduHDzX8tPmxTYGs285jwEhBxI= Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document. Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on with the SVN to git migration. I would also suggest to postpone - label details in the issue tracker (can be done later) - trac wiki migration (can be done later) to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck. In a nutshell: RFC6 proposes to migrate to github under OSGeo organization. It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a continuous mirror on GitLab.com. Best Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=ZFdNItSY-vZfmG2phTQm2mCpnH0h8tQuydlwxNFLKdE=CQ94SbB5oRwtrvm3W9x-qHu5p2b9IioFzwszzqJj-FU= ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi Markus, all, > Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. April 2019 um 22:02 Uhr > Von: "Markus Neteler" > An: "GRASS PSC list" > Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration > > Hi PSC, > > a months has passed since the publication of the draft > > RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub > https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub > > Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document. > > Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on > with the SVN to git migration. > + 1 (we should not forget about the Zenodo option) > I would also suggest to postpone > - label details in the issue tracker (can be done later) > - trac wiki migration (can be done later) > to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck. + 1 > In a nutshell: RFC6 proposes to migrate to github under OSGeo > organization. It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a > continuous mirror on GitLab.com. +1 best peter ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
On 7/04/19 22:02, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi PSC, a months has passed since the publication of the draft RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document. Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on with the SVN to git migration. +1 I would also suggest to postpone - label details in the issue tracker (can be done later) - trac wiki migration (can be done later) to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck. +1 Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi, st 27. 3. 2019 v 14:30 odesílatel Anna Petrášová napsal: >>> I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in >>> the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe >>> that we should keep >>> raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are >>> useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO. right, modules are too generic. * raster (everything raster related -> 2d, 3d, imagery) * vector (everything vector related -> 2d, 3d) * temporal would be enough? > I agree, although with raster, vector etc it's not quite clear if it should > refer to modules or libraries or both. Also don't forget labels work > differently than trac categories. > > I would also add 'Mac specific', (I don't think we need also Linux specific) > and maybe just shorten it to 'MacOS' and 'Windows'. Sound reasonable. > Also I would add a label 'beginner'. Why not :-) Ma -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: the Zenodo option
I agree. C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science Arizona State University voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu On Apr 1, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Peter Löwe mailto:peter.lo...@gmx.de>> wrote: Hello PSC, before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use of the Zenodo archive in the future, so we can set up things in a way that this option can be used (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term scientific archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Zenodo=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=eLqy-us8Ndl3Ib-jVCqg6HnDVX5UplIhMBJi_ikKpFU=>), operated and maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS. Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__guides.github.com_activities_citable-2Dcode_=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=uxwdmfyG2MUsWuGFvLkBgK5kU6InGQpB8174EOILG3Q=> IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x. best, peter mailto:peter.lo...@gmx.de>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. März 2019 um 12:28 Uhr Von: "Markus Neteler" mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>> An: GRASS-PSC mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org>> Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration Hi all, where do we stand here at time? Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=-r3dUKskTlpotQnaqfAnh9m12i-F02d_oLOHKaM-wfk=> ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=-r3dUKskTlpotQnaqfAnh9m12i-F02d_oLOHKaM-wfk= ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:48 AM Margherita Di Leo wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues >> in the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still >> believe that we should keep >> raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are >> useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO. >> > I agree, although with raster, vector etc it's not quite clear if it should refer to modules or libraries or both. Also don't forget labels work differently than trac categories. I would also add 'Mac specific', (I don't think we need also Linux specific) and maybe just shorten it to 'MacOS' and 'Windows'. Also I would add a label 'beginner'. Anna > I tend to agree with Vero. > Cheers, > >> >> my 0.2 cents >> Vero >> >> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2019-March/091584.html >> >> >> > -- > Margherita Di Leo > ___ > grass-psc mailing list > grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo wrote: > Hi, > > I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in > the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe > that we should keep > raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are > useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO. > I tend to agree with Vero. Cheers, > > my 0.2 cents > Vero > > [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2019-March/091584.html > > > -- Margherita Di Leo ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi all, where do we stand here at time? Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Markus Neteler wrote > PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with > developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of > work... thanks Martin!! big kudos to Martin! - best regards Helmut -- Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GRASS-PSC-f4051248.html ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi Luís, On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Luís Moreira de Sousa wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which > they would like GRASS migrate to. Personally, I would answer differently to > each of these questions. I have an account on GitHub, but I no longer use it > for personal projects and am trying to move collaborative projects away. > > I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially > considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform. We spent weeks on it over the last 15 months :-) Just not in this list which is low traffic anyway but during the last code sprints and in offlist emails among interested folks. > In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome! Yes: let's start and migrate, time to move on. And see also my other email from a few minutes ago about exit strategy in case it is needed. Best Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi, On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:41 AM Stefan Blumentrath wrote: > Two minor non-PSC comment on RFC 6, which generally looks very good to me: > > 1) One thing I probably would word a bit differently, is the comment on the > addon repository, that currently says: > " repository grass-addons > repository for addons (this will become less relevant as people tend to keep > their addons in own repositories)" > Here I would say that esp because people are keeping addons in private > repositories, it is even more important to simplify contribution to AddOns > (and I hope the move to git would help). Because I consider it as highly > valuable to have available addons gathered in one place (see amongst others: > https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3583). Yes: we should support both and be rather inviting towards our own addon repo (read: "mostly well maintained"). It is just a matter of fact that folks will keep code in their own repos but an addon manager from the grass-dev side you take care that relevant contributions are merged into our central addons repo as before. > 2) Even being among those who voted for gitlab, I have to admit (as hinted > earlier) that I would nevertheless come to the same conclusion that github > sould be the destination/target (simply for pragmatical reasons). Also, many > participants asked for OSGeo projects sticking together. And most of them are > on github. In my company we use successfully a self-deployed gitlab instance. Yet we want to have more contributors and many are on github... (so far). > That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away > from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as > possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to > move. Just to acknowledge that, > a) the decision for github as a target is mainly a pragmatical one (as it is > not Free and Open) and following the current majority vote yes. > b) even OSGeo projects that currently are on GitHub, like QGIS, have an eye > on Gitlab [2] based on a feature analysis [see 1] also yes. > c) with 43 participants voting for GitHub, 24 voting for gitlab (pluss 5 > voting for gitlab in OSGeo infrastructure) there is still (already?) a > significant number of people with different preferences > But again, lets move to git(hub) and try to stay as flexible as possible... For now, I have added a new subsection: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub#Exitstrategy which essentially suggests to operate a real time mirror on gitlab.com. Best Markus PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of work... thanks Martin!! > Cheers > Stefan > > 1: https://about.gitlab.com/devops-tools/github-vs-gitlab.html > 2: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi, st 6. 3. 2019 v 14:42 odesílatel Luís Moreira de Sousa napsal: > the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which > they would like GRASS migrate to. see question: "What would be your preferred git platform?" > Personally, I would answer differently to each of these questions. I have an > account on GitHub, but I no longer use it for personal projects and am trying > to move collaborative projects away. I understand your points. I am the last who is happy with migrating GRASS source code (issues) to GitHub. On the other hand most of core OSGeo projects are on GitHub [1] including QGIS, or, well, PyWPS ;-) > I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially > considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform. Well, in the case that own OSGeo git platform would be stable and solid, enough manpower to maintain than most of OSGeo projects would be there. GDAL recently migrated to GitHub, etc. There are some clear pragmatic points why to join Github. At least to join other projects like GDAL and Proj.4 which are crucial for GRASS GIS. > In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome! Cool :-) Ma [1] https://github.com/osgeo -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi all, a quick voice as non-core dev, 1. there should be one official GRASS GIS Add-Ons repository 2. there should be a set of minimal requirements to accept requests to include add-ons in the official repository 3. `g.extension` deserves some love and improvements and it should issue a Warning like "Note, you are installing an add-on from an unofficial source" when using a repository other than the official one 4. there should be some minimal testing for an add-on, i.e.: does it build after a(ny) commit?, does it work after a(ny) commit? and ideally a set of unit tests too. 5. besides git, neither git-hub, nor git-lab should be ever considered permanent That said, import/export operations for repositories are by now quite good and I guess they will improve further Cheers, Nikos ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi, st 6. 3. 2019 v 11:41 odesílatel Stefan Blumentrath napsal: > That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away > from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as > possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to > move. Just to acknowledge that, I agree. In the case that we will use Github issue (+wiki) we should do regular backup download through their API. Ma -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:24 PM Martin Landa wrote: > Hi, > > as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to > git, see also related survey > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics. > > From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of > the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won. I come to the same conclusions. Importantly, once migrated we can run a mirror in Gitlab. > I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code, > issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it. > > See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20 I have drafted a document: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub Please review and comment. Markus -- Markus Neteler, PhD https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software https://grass.osgeo.org https://courses.neteler.org/blog ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
