Re: [python-committers] Github accounts

2016-01-04 Thread Andrew MacIntyre 

On 4/01/2016 12:38 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

On 03.01.2016 05:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:

This hardly seems like a real problem, so let's not worry more about it
until someone actually needs help solving this.


For Andrew, it would have been a real problem, so IMO it's better
to be prepared for it and let potential new contributors know that
we can help resolve the issue.


My concern related to a potential situation rather than an existing 
situation, fortunately, and was partly based on incomplete information.


For my personal circumstances I've now concluded that if it had become 
necessary I think the separation requirements I need to comply with 
could be satisfied by:

- using a free GitHub account exclusively for personal activities; and
- using paid GitHub accounts exclusively for any employment related 
activities even in the unlikely event I have to cover costs myself.


If the scenario eventuated I would still seek formal advice to validate 
this assessment.  It is also fortunate that I've not compromised a free 
GitHub account by employment related use before reaching these conclusions.



Otherwise, people who potentially have a problem wouldn't even
consider contributing via the new Github workflow, which can't
really be in our interest.


Having clear information about handling conflict of interest situations, 
particularly between personal and employment related activities in the 
context of both the PSF's contribution requirements and GitHub's ToS 
requirements (especially in relation to free accounts), can only be a 
help in my view.


All the best,
Andrew.

--
-
Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..."
E-mail: [email protected]  (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370
[email protected] (alt) |Belconnen ACT 2616
Web:http://www.andymac.org/   |Australia

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Eli Bendersky 
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Brett Cannon  wrote:

> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, see
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
> If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
> subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
>
> Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier
> developer workflow by the end of this year!
>

That sounds like a great idea.

I suppose you'll want to use https://github.com/python/cpython, which I'm
currently maintaining as a read-only mirror. Let me know when you want to
take control of that repo - I think since it belongs to the "python" Github
org already, it should be easy to do.

I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters
and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
transition.

Eli
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
>> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, see
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
>> If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
>> subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
>>
>> Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier
>> developer workflow by the end of this year!
>>
>
> That sounds like a great idea.
>
> I suppose you'll want to use https://github.com/python/cpython, which I'm
> currently maintaining as a read-only mirror. Let me know when you want to
> take control of that repo - I think since it belongs to the "python" Github
> org already, it should be easy to do.
>

I suspect we will want to use it, Eli, so thanks for the offer! I will let
you know if we end up choosing to use it.


>
> I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters
> and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
> encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
> transition.
>

That will be one of the early steps of the transition. :)
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread R. David Murray 
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:18:02 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky  wrote:
> >
> > I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters
> > and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
> > encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
> > transition.
> >
> 
> That will be one of the early steps of the transition. :)

Maybe The PSF could fund Eric Raymond to do this?  He's got
beyond-the-basics tooling, and a fair bit of experience converting
large projects.  He might even be able to clean up the older (svn)
history along the way, although that might be too much to hope for ;)

(Oh, and let me mention this while I'm thinking about it: we're going
to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
between hg hashes and git hashes.)

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Barry Warsaw 
On Jan 04, 2016, at 03:33 PM, R. David Murray wrote:

>Maybe The PSF could fund Eric Raymond to do this?

reposurgeon is the tool he developed to port Emacs's bzr repository to git,
and it successfully handled all the previous vcses Emacs was ever developed
under (after, IIRC, much tweaking).

http://www.catb.org/esr/reposurgeon/

Looks like it at least claims to support hg.

I once looked at it and decided it wasn't something I wanted to touch ;) so
paying Eric to do it might not be a bad idea.

Cheers,
-Barry
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft 

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
> 
> I once looked at it and decided it wasn't something I wanted to touch ;) so
> paying Eric to do it might not be a bad idea.


I’d prefer it if we didn’t financially support ESR since he likes to spout off 
racist and misogynistic garbage. I’m sure we can figure out how to successfully 
migrate from Hg to git. I’ve already done it once on the demo repo, if that’s 
not good enough I’ll work on it some more if need be.

-
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor 
+1

Alex

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Donald Stufft  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
> >
> > I once looked at it and decided it wasn't something I wanted to touch ;)
> so
> > paying Eric to do it might not be a bad idea.
>
>
> I’d prefer it if we didn’t financially support ESR since he likes to spout
> off racist and misogynistic garbage. I’m sure we can figure out how to
> successfully migrate from Hg to git. I’ve already done it once on the demo
> repo, if that’s not good enough I’ll work on it some more if need be.
>
> -
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372
> DCFA
>
>
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
>


-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Steve Dower 
I've found that hggit works very well - I used it to migrate my work project to 
github and still use it to avoid having to deal with git. (My intent is to keep 
using it for Python as well.)

Is the plan to migrate the entire history or just master?

Top-posted from my Windows Phone

-Original Message-
From: "R. David Murray" 
Sent: ‎1/‎5/‎2016 7:34
To: "python-committers" 
Subject: Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:18:02 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky  wrote:
> >
> > I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters
> > and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
> > encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
> > transition.
> >
> 
> That will be one of the early steps of the transition. :)

Maybe The PSF could fund Eric Raymond to do this?  He's got
beyond-the-basics tooling, and a fair bit of experience converting
large projects.  He might even be able to clean up the older (svn)
history along the way, although that might be too much to hope for ;)

(Oh, and let me mention this while I'm thinking about it: we're going
to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
between hg hashes and git hashes.)

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:08 Steve Dower  wrote:

> I've found that hggit works very well - I used it to migrate my work
> project to github and still use it to avoid having to deal with git. (My
> intent is to keep using it for Python as well.)
>
> Is the plan to migrate the entire history or just master?
>

TBD. Email beginning to outline the dependency graph for the transition
forthcoming once I finish a code review at work that some co-worker handed
to me when he went off to Australia for an extended holiday. ;)

-Brett


>
> Top-posted from my Windows Phone
> --
> From: R. David Murray 
> Sent: ‎1/‎5/‎2016 7:34
> To: python-committers 
> Subject: Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully)
> in2016
>
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:18:02 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git
> converters
> > > and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
> > > encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
> > > transition.
> > >
> >
> > That will be one of the early steps of the transition. :)
>
> Maybe The PSF could fund Eric Raymond to do this?  He's got
> beyond-the-basics tooling, and a fair bit of experience converting
> large projects.  He might even be able to clean up the older (svn)
> history along the way, although that might be too much to hope for ;)
>
> (Oh, and let me mention this while I'm thinking about it: we're going
> to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
> tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
> between hg hashes and git hashes.)
>
> --David
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft 

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:08 Steve Dower  > wrote:
> I've found that hggit works very well - I used it to migrate my work project 
> to github and still use it to avoid having to deal with git. (My intent is to 
> keep using it for Python as well.)
> 
> Is the plan to migrate the entire history or just master?
> 
> TBD. Email beginning to outline the dependency graph for the transition 
> forthcoming once I finish a code review at work that some co-worker handed to 
> me when he went off to Australia for an extended holiday. ;)
> 


It’s pretty easy to migrate the entire history (at least what’s in Hg) 
including all branches and tags.

-
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:14 Donald Stufft  wrote:

>
> On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:08 Steve Dower  wrote:
>
>> I've found that hggit works very well - I used it to migrate my work
>> project to github and still use it to avoid having to deal with git. (My
>> intent is to keep using it for Python as well.)
>>
>> Is the plan to migrate the entire history or just master?
>>
>
> TBD. Email beginning to outline the dependency graph for the transition
> forthcoming once I finish a code review at work that some co-worker handed
> to me when he went off to Australia for an extended holiday. ;)
>
>
> It’s pretty easy to migrate the entire history (at least what’s in Hg)
> including all branches and tags.
>

It's not about the difficulty as the size of the clone. E.g., if we make
Python 2 a separate repo does it buy us a lot of space savings (we need to
remember not everyone has broadband, so there is some potential balance to
be had between history vs. clone size)?
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft 
I'm not sure that you'd see much savings. You'd only get deltas that were never 
merged to master excluded. Point taken though. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:14 Donald Stufft  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:08 Steve Dower  wrote:
 I've found that hggit works very well - I used it to migrate my work 
 project to github and still use it to avoid having to deal with git. (My 
 intent is to keep using it for Python as well.)
 
 Is the plan to migrate the entire history or just master?
>>> 
>>> TBD. Email beginning to outline the dependency graph for the transition 
>>> forthcoming once I finish a code review at work that some co-worker handed 
>>> to me when he went off to Australia for an extended holiday. ;)
>> 
>> 
>> It’s pretty easy to migrate the entire history (at least what’s in Hg) 
>> including all branches and tags.
> 
> It's not about the difficulty as the size of the clone. E.g., if we make 
> Python 2 a separate repo does it buy us a lot of space savings (we need to 
> remember not everyone has broadband, so there is some potential balance to be 
> had between history vs. clone size)?
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Guido van Rossum 
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Donald Stufft  wrote:

> I'm not sure that you'd see much savings. You'd only get deltas that were
> never merged to master excluded. Point taken though.
>

Is the expectation that a Git clone would be significantly larger than an
Hg clone of an equivalent repo? I currently often rely on a single Hg clone
containing all branches.

+1 on not supporting ESR, for the stated reason.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Barry Warsaw 
On Jan 04, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

>I currently often rely on a single Hg clone containing all branches.

I do hope that a single repo will contain all the branches, though I wouldn't
mind too much if we split Python 2 and 3 into separate repos.  git worktree is
a nice tool if you want separate file system directories for the different
branches.

Cheers,
-Barry
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Georg Brandl 
On 01/01/2016 08:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab,
> see https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
> If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
> subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
> 
> Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier developer
> workflow by the end of this year!

Thanks for pioneering all the work and discussion needed to come to this
decision.

I think that in combination with a homu-style bot we can get a very nice
improved workflow going.

Georg

___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor 
My git clone is 350MB (after a make clean), a fresh hg clone is 650MB.

Alex

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Georg Brandl  wrote:

> On 01/01/2016 08:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab,
> > see
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
> > If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
> > subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
> >
> > Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier
> developer
> > workflow by the end of this year!
>
> Thanks for pioneering all the work and discussion needed to come to this
> decision.
>
> I think that in combination with a homu-style bot we can get a very nice
> improved workflow going.
>
> Georg
>
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>



-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 14:09 Guido van Rossum  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Donald Stufft  wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that you'd see much savings. You'd only get deltas that were
>> never merged to master excluded. Point taken though.
>>
>
> Is the expectation that a Git clone would be significantly larger than an
> Hg clone of an equivalent repo? I currently often rely on a single Hg clone
> containing all branches.
>

I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking what difference it would make if we
separated out Python 2 branches into their own clone from Python 3 branches.


>
> +1 on not supporting ESR, for the stated reason.
>

+1 from me as well for not supporting ESR.

-Brett


>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Trent Nelson 
Hey Brett, all,

I’m playing a bit of catch-up with e-mail, but it occurred to me some of the
work I did getting PyParallel switched over to github could be of benefit.
First thing that comes to mind is this wiki page where I tried to capture the
steps I used for the conversion and subsequent keeping-in-sync:

https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/wiki/Source-Control

They’re very rough notes but may prove useful.  Should *hopefully* be
repeatable.  One issue I noticed after the fact is that a couple of the renames
that happened when we went 2.x->3.x (like ConfigParser.py -> configparser.py)
didn’t get picked up by the hg->git conversion so I had to manually fix them
with commits like this:
https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/commit/d3654f13048c8d6185a4c4b7953cbe8bd46b5d83

(I’ll be able to produce a proper list of the exact ones I had to fix… I just
wanted to get this e-mail out there for now.)

(That repo is sync’d up to around 3.5-ish (i.e. as of a few months ago)… all
the PyParallel stuff lived in separate *-px branches that originated from
3.3.x-ish.  Obviously we wouldn’t use that repo directly… or at least not
without git filtering out my PyParallel stuff.)

I also made some changes to things like the buildinfo glue to work with git
instead of hg:

https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/blob/branches/3.3-px/diffs/PCbuild/make_buildinfo.c.patch

I also updated the installer/msi.py to work with git but Steve’s since
overhauled all this stuff so I’m not sure how useful it will be:

https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/commit/ca64e60fd323875e2ca4af497d15d2f856f6c34d

What timeframe are we looking at?  There were some mentions of PSF funding in
later e-mails which I think this sort of work (once off but still needs high
precision) is well suited for.  I’ll throw my hat into the ring if the
PSF<->Continuum want to formally book out some time.  (I’m happy to help either
way, but doing it formally at least guarantees time availability.)

Regards,

Trent.

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 07:24:53PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, see
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
> If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
> subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
> 
> Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier developer
> workflow by the end of this year!

> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft 

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Trent Nelson  wrote:
> 
> Hey Brett, all,
> 
> I’m playing a bit of catch-up with e-mail, but it occurred to me some of the
> work I did getting PyParallel switched over to github could be of benefit.
> First thing that comes to mind is this wiki page where I tried to capture the
> steps I used for the conversion and subsequent keeping-in-sync:
> 
> https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/wiki/Source-Control
> 
> They’re very rough notes but may prove useful.  Should *hopefully* be
> repeatable.  One issue I noticed after the fact is that a couple of the 
> renames
> that happened when we went 2.x->3.x (like ConfigParser.py -> configparser.py)
> didn’t get picked up by the hg->git conversion so I had to manually fix them
> with commits like this:
> https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/commit/d3654f13048c8d6185a4c4b7953cbe8bd46b5d83
> 
> (I’ll be able to produce a proper list of the exact ones I had to fix… I just
> wanted to get this e-mail out there for now.)

You probably did this on OS X or another case insensitive filesystem yea? I had 
the same problem the first time I did the CPython demo repository, until I did 
it on Linux instead.

> 
> (That repo is sync’d up to around 3.5-ish (i.e. as of a few months ago)… all
> the PyParallel stuff lived in separate *-px branches that originated from
> 3.3.x-ish.  Obviously we wouldn’t use that repo directly… or at least not
> without git filtering out my PyParallel stuff.)
> 
> I also made some changes to things like the buildinfo glue to work with git
> instead of hg:
> 
> https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/blob/branches/3.3-px/diffs/PCbuild/make_buildinfo.c.patch
> 
> I also updated the installer/msi.py to work with git but Steve’s since
> overhauled all this stuff so I’m not sure how useful it will be:
> 
> https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/commit/ca64e60fd323875e2ca4af497d15d2f856f6c34d
> 
> What timeframe are we looking at?  There were some mentions of PSF funding in
> later e-mails which I think this sort of work (once off but still needs high
> precision) is well suited for.  I’ll throw my hat into the ring if the
> PSF<->Continuum want to formally book out some time.  (I’m happy to help 
> either
> way, but doing it formally at least guarantees time availability.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Trent.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 07:24:53PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, see
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
>> If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
>> subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
>> 
>> Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier developer
>> workflow by the end of this year!
> 
>> ___
>> python-committers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> 
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers


-
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Trent Nelson 
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:09:30PM -0500, Donald Stufft wrote:
> 
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Trent Nelson 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > They’re very rough notes but may prove useful.  Should *hopefully*
> > be repeatable.  One issue I noticed after the fact is that a couple
> > of the renames that happened when we went 2.x->3.x (like
> > ConfigParser.py -> configparser.py) didn’t get picked up by the
> > hg->git conversion so I had to manually fix them with commits like
> > this:
> > https://github.com/pyparallel/pyparallel/commit/d3654f13048c8d6185a4c4b7953cbe8bd46b5d83
> > 
> > (I’ll be able to produce a proper list of the exact ones I had to
> > fix… I just wanted to get this e-mail out there for now.)
> 
> You probably did this on OS X or another case insensitive filesystem
> yea? I had the same problem the first time I did the CPython demo
> repository, until I did it on Linux instead.

Yup, OS X.  That's great if it's just a matter of doing it on Linux!

Trent.
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Gregory P. Smith 
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
wrote:

> to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
> tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
> between hg hashes and git hashes.
>

Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix collisions
(possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash lookup
fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
 practical.  good enough.

-gps
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread R. David Murray 
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith"  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
> wrote:
> 
> > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
> > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
> > between hg hashes and git hashes.
> >
> 
> Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix collisions
> (possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash lookup
> fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
>  practical.  good enough.

Yes, collision is not the problem, it's that you can't distinguish them
without a lookup table or something.  Which means we have to do more
than just change the URL in the existing linkifier, which was my point.

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor 
Probably the easiest thing is to point the linkifier at our own webservice
that just does:

if hash not in cache:
try:
 requests.head("github.com/hash")
 except requests.error:
 try:
request.head("hg.python.org/hash")
 except request.error:
return 404
 else:
cache[hash] = hg.python.org
 else:
 cache[hash] = github
return cache[hash]


I'll send you my consulting bill :-)
Alex

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:33 PM, R. David Murray 
wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith" 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
> > > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
> > > between hg hashes and git hashes.
> > >
> >
> > Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix collisions
> > (possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash lookup
> > fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
> >  practical.  good enough.
>
> Yes, collision is not the problem, it's that you can't distinguish them
> without a lookup table or something.  Which means we have to do more
> than just change the URL in the existing linkifier, which was my point.
>
> --David
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>



-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Ezio Melotti 
The linkifier converts old svn revision numbers to links to e.g.
https://hg.python.org/lookup/r12345 , and this figures out the
equivalent hg changeset and redirects to the corresponding hg.p.o
page.
The linkifier should just create links to
https://hg.python.org/lookup/csid and let the page figure out if the
csid is from hg or git and redirect where more appropriate.

Best Regards,
Ezio Melotti

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Alex Gaynor  wrote:
> Probably the easiest thing is to point the linkifier at our own webservice
> that just does:
>
> if hash not in cache:
> try:
>  requests.head("github.com/hash")
>  except requests.error:
>  try:
> request.head("hg.python.org/hash")
>  except request.error:
> return 404
>  else:
> cache[hash] = hg.python.org
>  else:
>  cache[hash] = github
> return cache[hash]
>
>
> I'll send you my consulting bill :-)
> Alex
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:33 PM, R. David Murray 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith" 
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
>> > > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
>> > > between hg hashes and git hashes.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix
>> > collisions
>> > (possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash
>> > lookup
>> > fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
>> >  practical.  good enough.
>>
>> Yes, collision is not the problem, it's that you can't distinguish them
>> without a lookup table or something.  Which means we have to do more
>> than just change the URL in the existing linkifier, which was my point.
>>
>> --David
>> ___
>> python-committers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
>
>
>
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
> say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
> "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
> GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
>
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Nick Coghlan 
On 5 January 2016 at 11:33, R. David Murray  wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith"  
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
>> > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
>> > between hg hashes and git hashes.
>> >
>>
>> Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix collisions
>> (possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash lookup
>> fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
>>  practical.  good enough.
>
> Yes, collision is not the problem, it's that you can't distinguish them
> without a lookup table or something.  Which means we have to do more
> than just change the URL in the existing linkifier, which was my point.

In the specific case of Roundup, does the linkifier have the "date of
comment" info available? If so, it could fairly readily assume that
hashes prior to the cutover date are hg ones, and later ones are for
git.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Ezio Melotti 
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:
> On 5 January 2016 at 11:33, R. David Murray  wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith"  
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
>>> > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
>>> > between hg hashes and git hashes.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Just ignore the remote possibility of short 32-bit hash prefix collisions
>>> (possible, but infrequent): the way to resolve that is when a hash lookup
>>> fails, to look it up in a translation index of former hg hashes.
>>>  practical.  good enough.
>>
>> Yes, collision is not the problem, it's that you can't distinguish them
>> without a lookup table or something.  Which means we have to do more
>> than just change the URL in the existing linkifier, which was my point.
>
> In the specific case of Roundup, does the linkifier have the "date of
> comment" info available? If so, it could fairly readily assume that
> hashes prior to the cutover date are hg ones, and later ones are for
> git.

By looking at the code I don't see it readily available, but it might
be possible to retrieve it somehow.
However I think it's better to keep the linkifier simple and stupid
and just delegate to https://hg.python.org/lookup/ .

Best Regards,
Ezio Melotti

>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Serhiy Storchaka 
понеділок, 04-січ-2016 09:49:57 Eli Bendersky написано:
> I suppose you'll want to use https://github.com/python/cpython, which I'm
> currently maintaining as a read-only mirror. Let me know when you want to
> take control of that repo - I think since it belongs to the "python" Github
> org already, it should be easy to do.
> 
> I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters
> and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so I
> encourage you folks to find a VCS guru to look into this for the "real"
> transition.

I heard there is a problem with lost tags in this mirror:

https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/15

___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Senthil Kumaran 
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:

> I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking what difference it would make if we
> separated out Python 2 branches into their own clone from Python 3 branches.


Irrespective of the size difference, separating Python2 repo from Python3
repo might be a good idea. It will help in reviewing patches and
concentrating on Python 3 more.
As a side effect, since GitHub is used by many developers, if we get many
pull requests (or patches) against python 2 only, we will know about this
from community participation.

-- 
Senthil
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Serhiy Storchaka 
понеділок, 04-січ-2016 21:18:39 Brett Cannon написано:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:14 Donald Stufft  wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> > It’s pretty easy to migrate the entire history (at least what’s in Hg)
> > including all branches and tags.
> 
> It's not about the difficulty as the size of the clone. E.g., if we make
> Python 2 a separate repo does it buy us a lot of space savings (we need to
> remember not everyone has broadband, so there is some potential balance to
> be had between history vs. clone size)?

Please keep the full history. I often need it to search the source of the 
problem. The full history helps to find the original intention of the code, 
involved people and related discussions. A nation that forgets its past has no 
future.
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Serhiy Storchaka 
понеділок, 04-січ-2016 15:33:51 R. David Murray написано:
> (Oh, and let me mention this while I'm thinking about it: we're going
> to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug
> tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way to distinguish
> between hg hashes and git hashes.)

Is it possible to keep the same hashes in both Mercurial and Git?
Or at least the same short hashes?
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Georg Brandl 
This is now a moot point, but with generaldelta (active by default in hg 3.7)
the hg clone size is at around 400 MB.

Georg

On 01/04/2016 11:53 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> My git clone is 350MB (after a make clean), a fresh hg clone is 650MB.
> 
> Alex
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Georg Brandl  > wrote:
> 
> On 01/01/2016 08:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab,
> > see 
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .
> > If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please
> > subscribe to the core-workflow mailing list.
> >
> > Happy 2016 everyone, and here is to hoping we will have an easier 
> developer
> > workflow by the end of this year!
> 
> Thanks for pioneering all the work and discussion needed to come to this
> decision.
> 
> I think that in combination with a homu-style bot we can get a very nice
> improved workflow going.
> 
> Georg


___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers