Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Greg Hellings]

Now I'm attaching a simplified version of the CODEOWNERS for just the sword
repository. I've combined the configure.ac, Makefile.am, and CMakeLists.txt
entries to single entries and I've sorted the entries alphabetically (I
think...) ignoring any leading "/" characters. I've also substituted
usernames for where I know them:

scribe -> scribe777
refdoc == refdoc
tbiggs -> Tee2
charcoal -> karlkleinpaste

The others mentioned I don't know an equivalent GitHub username for:
willthimbleby, mgruner, dglassey, jansorg, chrislit

I've also gone ahead and created the 3 teams that are mentioned in the
file, so users can be added to them as appropriate.

--Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 5:21 PM Greg Hellings 
wrote:

> I'm attaching a Python file that gives a basic go at parsing the access
> file into a GitHub CODEOWNERS file, along with the output I get from it.
> It's not flawless, but it does properly transform group names to
> "@crosswire/group-name". It also assumes users have the same username
> between Crosswire and GitHub. Obviously a search/replace can account for
> that where it proves false.
>
> There is obviously plenty of room to simplify this, as it assumes all
> files are anchored to the root of the repository, and that does not have to
> be the case for CODEOWNERS. (e.g. /CMakeLists.txt will only apply to the
> file in the root of the repository whereas CMakeLists.txt would apply to a
> file with that name anywhere in the repo) However, it _should_ get us 99%
> of the way there.
>
> Note that the CODEOWNERS_files.txt includes an output for every one of the
> repos mentioned in your access file that you'd need to copy and paste out.
> Feel free to modify the script I've attached and run it with
> `access-to-codeowners.py access` as the argument. It can take arbitrarily
> many inputs or can have the access file piped to it if you want to
> pre-process in some way (e.g. by something like `sed -e
> s/scribe/scribe777/g`).
>
> --Greg
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:59 PM Timmy  wrote:
>
>> I apologize, I notice some of the file was cut. What I sent gives the
>> idea. If it's helpful for me to send everything then I will do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:44 PM Timmy  wrote:
>>
>>> Also, if there's code that should not be available to the public it
>>> would have to be put in a separate private repository with access granted
>>> just to the person(s) or team(s) that should have access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:42 PM Timmy  wrote:
>>>
 From my research and some help from ChatGPT, I think the below text
 would be the replacement for the access file (for GitHub CODEOWNERS).

 Note that I've simplified the Makefile.am, configure.ac,
 CMakeLists.txt files to one line. This means all files with that name would
 be included (saying in case that's not the intention).

 The "Teams" sword-prelim, sword-cmake, sword-release, sword-make would
 have to be created in the GitHub organization.

 A branch protection rule would have to be setup in GitHub for the
 master branch which would require at least "Require a pull request before
 merging" and "Require review from Code Owners". Admins would always have
 access to merge PRs unless also checking "Do not allow bypassing the above
 settings". In such a case no one would be able to merge to master without
 PR.

 I don't claim to be "the expert" but take the info for what it's worth.

 # Specific access rules for refdoc
 /trunk/man/ @refdoc
 /trunk/src/modules/filters/ @refdoc
 /trunk/include/teilatex.h @refdoc
 /trunk/include/osislatex.h @refdoc
 /trunk/include/gbflatex.h @refdoc
 /trunk/include/thmllatex.h @refdoc
 /trunk/src/mgr/markupfiltmgr.cpp @refdoc

 # Access rules for sword-prelim group
 /trunk/locales.d/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/bindings/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/examples/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/utilities/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/tests/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/scripts/ @sword-prelim
 /trunk/ChangeLog @sword-prelim
 /trunk/lib/vcppmake/ @sword-prelim

 # Access rules for sword-cmake group
 /trunk/cmake/ @sword-cmake

 # Access rules for sword-release group
 /branches/ @sword-release
 /tags/ @sword-release

 # Access rules for all files with the name Makefile.am
 **/Makefile.am @sword-make

 # Access rules for all files with the name configure.ac
 **/configure.ac @sword-make

 # Access rules for all files with the name CMakeLists.txt
 **/CMakeLists.txt @sword-cmake



 *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*


 On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:40 PM Peter von Kaehne 
 wrote:

> Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already
> on GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with
> 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Greg Hellings]

I'm attaching a Python file that gives a basic go at parsing the access
file into a GitHub CODEOWNERS file, along with the output I get from it.
It's not flawless, but it does properly transform group names to
"@crosswire/group-name". It also assumes users have the same username
between Crosswire and GitHub. Obviously a search/replace can account for
that where it proves false.

There is obviously plenty of room to simplify this, as it assumes all files
are anchored to the root of the repository, and that does not have to be
the case for CODEOWNERS. (e.g. /CMakeLists.txt will only apply to the file
in the root of the repository whereas CMakeLists.txt would apply to a file
with that name anywhere in the repo) However, it _should_ get us 99% of the
way there.

Note that the CODEOWNERS_files.txt includes an output for every one of the
repos mentioned in your access file that you'd need to copy and paste out.
Feel free to modify the script I've attached and run it with
`access-to-codeowners.py access` as the argument. It can take arbitrarily
many inputs or can have the access file piped to it if you want to
pre-process in some way (e.g. by something like `sed -e
s/scribe/scribe777/g`).

--Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:59 PM Timmy  wrote:

> I apologize, I notice some of the file was cut. What I sent gives the
> idea. If it's helpful for me to send everything then I will do that.
>
>
>
> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:44 PM Timmy  wrote:
>
>> Also, if there's code that should not be available to the public it would
>> have to be put in a separate private repository with access granted just to
>> the person(s) or team(s) that should have access.
>>
>>
>>
>> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:42 PM Timmy  wrote:
>>
>>> From my research and some help from ChatGPT, I think the below text
>>> would be the replacement for the access file (for GitHub CODEOWNERS).
>>>
>>> Note that I've simplified the Makefile.am, configure.ac, CMakeLists.txt
>>> files to one line. This means all files with that name would be included
>>> (saying in case that's not the intention).
>>>
>>> The "Teams" sword-prelim, sword-cmake, sword-release, sword-make would
>>> have to be created in the GitHub organization.
>>>
>>> A branch protection rule would have to be setup in GitHub for the master
>>> branch which would require at least "Require a pull request before merging"
>>> and "Require review from Code Owners". Admins would always have access to
>>> merge PRs unless also checking "Do not allow bypassing the above settings".
>>> In such a case no one would be able to merge to master without PR.
>>>
>>> I don't claim to be "the expert" but take the info for what it's worth.
>>>
>>> # Specific access rules for refdoc
>>> /trunk/man/ @refdoc
>>> /trunk/src/modules/filters/ @refdoc
>>> /trunk/include/teilatex.h @refdoc
>>> /trunk/include/osislatex.h @refdoc
>>> /trunk/include/gbflatex.h @refdoc
>>> /trunk/include/thmllatex.h @refdoc
>>> /trunk/src/mgr/markupfiltmgr.cpp @refdoc
>>>
>>> # Access rules for sword-prelim group
>>> /trunk/locales.d/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/bindings/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/examples/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/utilities/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/tests/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/scripts/ @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/ChangeLog @sword-prelim
>>> /trunk/lib/vcppmake/ @sword-prelim
>>>
>>> # Access rules for sword-cmake group
>>> /trunk/cmake/ @sword-cmake
>>>
>>> # Access rules for sword-release group
>>> /branches/ @sword-release
>>> /tags/ @sword-release
>>>
>>> # Access rules for all files with the name Makefile.am
>>> **/Makefile.am @sword-make
>>>
>>> # Access rules for all files with the name configure.ac
>>> **/configure.ac @sword-make
>>>
>>> # Access rules for all files with the name CMakeLists.txt
>>> **/CMakeLists.txt @sword-cmake
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:40 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>>>
 Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already
 on GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with
 unfriendly policy changes of GitHub - but I am not entirely sure anymore.

 Cyrille, Dominique or David might know.

 We already run a GitLab instance on our CrossWire server, so we do know
 it in terms of admin etc.  I do not think GitHub is per se the more
 relevant place over GitLab in terms of exposure or ease of use.

 Might GitLab be the better choice to open up shop in?

 Peter

 Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”

 On 17 Mar 2023, at 20:11, Greg Hellings 
 wrote:

 
 Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an
 invite to it.

 --Greg

 On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne 
 wrote:

> I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I
> will 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Timmy]

I apologize, I notice some of the file was cut. What I sent gives the idea.
If it's helpful for me to send everything then I will do that.



*--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*


On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:44 PM Timmy  wrote:

> Also, if there's code that should not be available to the public it would
> have to be put in a separate private repository with access granted just to
> the person(s) or team(s) that should have access.
>
>
>
> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:42 PM Timmy  wrote:
>
>> From my research and some help from ChatGPT, I think the below text would
>> be the replacement for the access file (for GitHub CODEOWNERS).
>>
>> Note that I've simplified the Makefile.am, configure.ac, CMakeLists.txt
>> files to one line. This means all files with that name would be included
>> (saying in case that's not the intention).
>>
>> The "Teams" sword-prelim, sword-cmake, sword-release, sword-make would
>> have to be created in the GitHub organization.
>>
>> A branch protection rule would have to be setup in GitHub for the master
>> branch which would require at least "Require a pull request before merging"
>> and "Require review from Code Owners". Admins would always have access to
>> merge PRs unless also checking "Do not allow bypassing the above settings".
>> In such a case no one would be able to merge to master without PR.
>>
>> I don't claim to be "the expert" but take the info for what it's worth.
>>
>> # Specific access rules for refdoc
>> /trunk/man/ @refdoc
>> /trunk/src/modules/filters/ @refdoc
>> /trunk/include/teilatex.h @refdoc
>> /trunk/include/osislatex.h @refdoc
>> /trunk/include/gbflatex.h @refdoc
>> /trunk/include/thmllatex.h @refdoc
>> /trunk/src/mgr/markupfiltmgr.cpp @refdoc
>>
>> # Access rules for sword-prelim group
>> /trunk/locales.d/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/bindings/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/examples/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/utilities/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/tests/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/scripts/ @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/ChangeLog @sword-prelim
>> /trunk/lib/vcppmake/ @sword-prelim
>>
>> # Access rules for sword-cmake group
>> /trunk/cmake/ @sword-cmake
>>
>> # Access rules for sword-release group
>> /branches/ @sword-release
>> /tags/ @sword-release
>>
>> # Access rules for all files with the name Makefile.am
>> **/Makefile.am @sword-make
>>
>> # Access rules for all files with the name configure.ac
>> **/configure.ac @sword-make
>>
>> # Access rules for all files with the name CMakeLists.txt
>> **/CMakeLists.txt @sword-cmake
>>
>>
>>
>> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:40 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>>
>>> Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already
>>> on GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with
>>> unfriendly policy changes of GitHub - but I am not entirely sure anymore.
>>>
>>> Cyrille, Dominique or David might know.
>>>
>>> We already run a GitLab instance on our CrossWire server, so we do know
>>> it in terms of admin etc.  I do not think GitHub is per se the more
>>> relevant place over GitLab in terms of exposure or ease of use.
>>>
>>> Might GitLab be the better choice to open up shop in?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2023, at 20:11, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an
>>> invite to it.
>>>
>>> --Greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>>>
 I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I
 will look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I
 can do so

 Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”

 On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings 
 wrote:

 
 Troy,

 I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help
 point in the right direction, a couple of questions:

 Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and
 using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that
 is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the
 future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub
 repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine
 the recommendations and conversion path.

 In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as
 Code Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation
 about their implementation.
 Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners

 If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and
 pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.

 I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Timmy]

Also, if there's code that should not be available to the public it would
have to be put in a separate private repository with access granted just to
the person(s) or team(s) that should have access.



*--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*


On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:42 PM Timmy  wrote:

> From my research and some help from ChatGPT, I think the below text would
> be the replacement for the access file (for GitHub CODEOWNERS).
>
> Note that I've simplified the Makefile.am, configure.ac, CMakeLists.txt
> files to one line. This means all files with that name would be included
> (saying in case that's not the intention).
>
> The "Teams" sword-prelim, sword-cmake, sword-release, sword-make would
> have to be created in the GitHub organization.
>
> A branch protection rule would have to be setup in GitHub for the master
> branch which would require at least "Require a pull request before merging"
> and "Require review from Code Owners". Admins would always have access to
> merge PRs unless also checking "Do not allow bypassing the above settings".
> In such a case no one would be able to merge to master without PR.
>
> I don't claim to be "the expert" but take the info for what it's worth.
>
> # Specific access rules for refdoc
> /trunk/man/ @refdoc
> /trunk/src/modules/filters/ @refdoc
> /trunk/include/teilatex.h @refdoc
> /trunk/include/osislatex.h @refdoc
> /trunk/include/gbflatex.h @refdoc
> /trunk/include/thmllatex.h @refdoc
> /trunk/src/mgr/markupfiltmgr.cpp @refdoc
>
> # Access rules for sword-prelim group
> /trunk/locales.d/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/bindings/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/examples/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/utilities/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/tests/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/scripts/ @sword-prelim
> /trunk/ChangeLog @sword-prelim
> /trunk/lib/vcppmake/ @sword-prelim
>
> # Access rules for sword-cmake group
> /trunk/cmake/ @sword-cmake
>
> # Access rules for sword-release group
> /branches/ @sword-release
> /tags/ @sword-release
>
> # Access rules for all files with the name Makefile.am
> **/Makefile.am @sword-make
>
> # Access rules for all files with the name configure.ac
> **/configure.ac @sword-make
>
> # Access rules for all files with the name CMakeLists.txt
> **/CMakeLists.txt @sword-cmake
>
>
>
> *--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:40 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>
>> Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already on
>> GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with unfriendly
>> policy changes of GitHub - but I am not entirely sure anymore.
>>
>> Cyrille, Dominique or David might know.
>>
>> We already run a GitLab instance on our CrossWire server, so we do know
>> it in terms of admin etc.  I do not think GitHub is per se the more
>> relevant place over GitLab in terms of exposure or ease of use.
>>
>> Might GitLab be the better choice to open up shop in?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2023, at 20:11, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an
>> invite to it.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>>
>>> I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will
>>> look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do
>>> so
>>>
>>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Troy,
>>>
>>> I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help
>>> point in the right direction, a couple of questions:
>>>
>>> Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and
>>> using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that
>>> is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the
>>> future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub
>>> repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine
>>> the recommendations and conversion path.
>>>
>>> In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as
>>> Code Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation
>>> about their implementation.
>>> Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners
>>>
>>> If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and
>>> pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.
>>>
>>> I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have
>>> admin rights there to address #1.
>>>
>>> --Greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I don't want this to turn into a debate.

 I agree, we need to move source control to git.

 I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the
 visibility to draw other developers.

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Timmy]

>From my research and some help from ChatGPT, I think the below text would
be the replacement for the access file (for GitHub CODEOWNERS).

Note that I've simplified the Makefile.am, configure.ac, CMakeLists.txt
files to one line. This means all files with that name would be included
(saying in case that's not the intention).

The "Teams" sword-prelim, sword-cmake, sword-release, sword-make would have
to be created in the GitHub organization.

A branch protection rule would have to be setup in GitHub for the master
branch which would require at least "Require a pull request before merging"
and "Require review from Code Owners". Admins would always have access to
merge PRs unless also checking "Do not allow bypassing the above settings".
In such a case no one would be able to merge to master without PR.

I don't claim to be "the expert" but take the info for what it's worth.

# Specific access rules for refdoc
/trunk/man/ @refdoc
/trunk/src/modules/filters/ @refdoc
/trunk/include/teilatex.h @refdoc
/trunk/include/osislatex.h @refdoc
/trunk/include/gbflatex.h @refdoc
/trunk/include/thmllatex.h @refdoc
/trunk/src/mgr/markupfiltmgr.cpp @refdoc

# Access rules for sword-prelim group
/trunk/locales.d/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/bindings/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/examples/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/utilities/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/tests/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/scripts/ @sword-prelim
/trunk/ChangeLog @sword-prelim
/trunk/lib/vcppmake/ @sword-prelim

# Access rules for sword-cmake group
/trunk/cmake/ @sword-cmake

# Access rules for sword-release group
/branches/ @sword-release
/tags/ @sword-release

# Access rules for all files with the name Makefile.am
**/Makefile.am @sword-make

# Access rules for all files with the name configure.ac
**/configure.ac @sword-make

# Access rules for all files with the name CMakeLists.txt
**/CMakeLists.txt @sword-cmake



*--Timmy BraunCell: +501-615-4531*


On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:40 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

> Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already on
> GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with unfriendly
> policy changes of GitHub - but I am not entirely sure anymore.
>
> Cyrille, Dominique or David might know.
>
> We already run a GitLab instance on our CrossWire server, so we do know it
> in terms of admin etc.  I do not think GitHub is per se the more relevant
> place over GitLab in terms of exposure or ease of use.
>
> Might GitLab be the better choice to open up shop in?
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>
> On 17 Mar 2023, at 20:11, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>
> 
> Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an
> invite to it.
>
> --Greg
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>
>> I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will
>> look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do
>> so
>>
>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Troy,
>>
>> I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help
>> point in the right direction, a couple of questions:
>>
>> Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and
>> using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that
>> is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the
>> future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub
>> repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine
>> the recommendations and conversion path.
>>
>> In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code
>> Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about
>> their implementation.
>> Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners
>>
>> If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and
>> pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.
>>
>> I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have
>> admin rights there to address #1.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want this to turn into a debate.
>>>
>>> I agree, we need to move source control to git.
>>>
>>> I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the
>>> visibility to draw other developers.
>>>
>>> To move forward with this:
>>>
>>> 1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire' organization,
>>> which I currently don't have.
>>>
>>> 2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also surprised
>>> we have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to have on github for
>>> posterity).
>>> 3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a solution
>>> that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[David Haslam]

This thread so far mentions GitHub but some of our projects for module content 
development have been hosted on GitLab and some on the GitLab instance 
installed on the CrossWire server.

IIRC, Peter owns and manages users on the latter (git.crosswire.org), and 
possibly also the CrossWire organisation on gitlab.com. Correct me if I’m 
mistaken.

btw. Fr Cyrille also uses GitHub for some module development.

NB. Which project resides where largely depends on the copyright status of the 
content.

Source code development for the SWORD API is a separate activity. Are we 
envisaging using GitHub for this purpose?

David

Sent from Proton Mail for iOS

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 20:08, Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

> I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will look 
> into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do so
>
> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>
>> On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>
>> 
>> Troy,
>>
>> I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help point 
>> in the right direction, a couple of questions:
>>
>> Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and using 
>> GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that is 
>> just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the future? 
>> Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub 
>> repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine the 
>> recommendations and conversion path.
>>
>> In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code 
>> Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about 
>> their implementation. 
>> Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners
>>
>> If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and 
>> pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.
>>
>> I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have admin 
>> rights there to address #1.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want this to turn into a debate.
>>>
>>> I agree, we need to move source control to git.
>>>
>>> I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the 
>>> visibility to draw other developers.
>>>
>>> To move forward with this:
>>>
>>> 1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire' organization, 
>>> which I currently don't have.
>>>
>>> 2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also surprised we 
>>> have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to have on github for 
>>> posterity).
>>> 3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a solution 
>>> that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for merging PRs into 
>>> our master repository without my approval FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REPO 
>>> they own or are trusted to approve.
>>>
>>> This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from moving from 
>>> SVN to git. If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy way to elevate 
>>> permissions for accounts for parts of the repository. I don't want to have 
>>> to approve all changes! I trust our pumpkin holders to care for their parts 
>>> of the repository.
>>>
>>> We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but they do not 
>>> handle this well. e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings full write access to 
>>> merge any PR which updates any of our cmake scripts in all folders 
>>> everywhere. I don't know anything about cmake and Greg is an expert. I want 
>>> him to be able to manage that build system without my oversight. I trust 
>>> him. I do not want to grant Greg merge access for code that has anything to 
>>> do with our C++ engine. He might be a great C++ programmer, but he hasn't 
>>> expressed he wants that access or ever submitted C++ code for me to review 
>>> and merge myself, so I want to protect Greg from accidentally merging in 
>>> someone's PR which includes C++ engine code.
>>>
>>> In SVN this is easy. Attached is our SVN access file. Help me translate 
>>> this workflow to Github. There must be some way to restrict merges based on 
>>> the merging user and files modified in the PR. Or at least require a review 
>>> by certain users bases on the files modified in the PR.
>>>
>>> Help me :)
>>>
>>> Troy
>>>
>>> On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>>
 Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm refusing to get Subversion 
 going. It's simply that it's too much work that I haven't bothered and 
 don't foresee doing so anytime soon.

 And, with no setup to automatically test the scripts in all the 
 environments they must support, it's not likely others are willing to 
 commit this on my behalf.

 --Greg

 On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42 Peter von Kaehne  

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Peter von Kaehne]

Just one suggestion - a huge amount of our module work happens already on GitLab rather than GitHub. I think the reasons were to do with unfriendly policy changes of GitHub - but I am not entirely sure anymore. Cyrille, Dominique or David might know. We already run a GitLab instance on our CrossWire server, so we do know it in terms of admin etc.  I do not think GitHub is per se the more relevant place over GitLab in terms of exposure or ease of use. Might GitLab be the better choice to open up shop in? PeterSent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”On 17 Mar 2023, at 20:11, Greg Hellings  wrote:Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an invite to it.--GregOn Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do soSent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:Troy,I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help point in the right direction, a couple of questions:Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine the recommendations and conversion path.In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about their implementation. Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-ownersIf you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have admin rights there to address #1.--GregOn Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts  wrote:
  

  
  
I don't want this to turn into a debate.
  
  I agree, we need to move source control to git.
I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github
  for the visibility to draw other developers.
To move forward with this:
1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire'
  organization, which I currently don't have.
2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also
  surprised we have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to
  have on github for posterity).
  3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a
  solution that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for
  merging PRs into our master repository without my approval FOR
  CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REPO they own or are trusted to approve.
This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from
  moving from SVN to git.  If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy
  way to elevate permissions for accounts for parts of the
  repository.  I don't want to have to approve all changes!  I trust
  our pumpkin holders to care for their parts of the repository.
We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but
  they do not handle this well.  e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings
  full write access to merge any PR which updates any of our cmake
  scripts in all folders everywhere.  I don't know anything about
  cmake and Greg is an expert.  I want him to be able to manage that
  build system without my oversight.  I trust him.  I do not want to
  grant Greg merge access for code that has anything to do with our
  C++ engine.  He might be a great C++ programmer, but he hasn't
  expressed he wants that access or ever submitted C++ code for me
  to review and merge myself, so I want to protect Greg from
  accidentally merging in someone's PR which includes C++ engine
  code.
In SVN this is easy.  Attached is our SVN access file.  Help me
  translate this workflow to Github.  There must be some way to
  restrict merges based on the merging user and files modified in
  the PR.  Or at least require a review by certain users bases on
  the files modified in the PR.
Help me :)
Troy



On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:


  
  Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm
refusing to get Subversion going. It's simply that it's too much
work that I haven't bothered and don't foresee doing so anytime
soon.


And, with no setup to automatically test the
  scripts in all the environments they must support, it's not
  likely others are willing to 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Greg Hellings]

Current owners are myself, DM, Karl, and Doug Campos. I sent Troy an invite
to it.

--Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

> I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will
> look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do
> so
>
> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>
> On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:
>
> 
> Troy,
>
> I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help point
> in the right direction, a couple of questions:
>
> Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and
> using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that
> is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the
> future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub
> repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine
> the recommendations and conversion path.
>
> In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code
> Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about
> their implementation.
> Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners
>
> If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and
> pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.
>
> I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have admin
> rights there to address #1.
>
> --Greg
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't want this to turn into a debate.
>>
>> I agree, we need to move source control to git.
>>
>> I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the
>> visibility to draw other developers.
>>
>> To move forward with this:
>>
>> 1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire' organization,
>> which I currently don't have.
>>
>> 2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also surprised we
>> have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to have on github for
>> posterity).
>> 3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a solution
>> that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for merging PRs into
>> our master repository without my approval FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REPO
>> they own or are trusted to approve.
>>
>> This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from moving
>> from SVN to git.  If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy way to elevate
>> permissions for accounts for parts of the repository.  I don't want to have
>> to approve all changes!  I trust our pumpkin holders to care for their
>> parts of the repository.
>>
>> We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but they do not
>> handle this well.  e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings full write access to
>> merge any PR which updates any of our cmake scripts in all folders
>> everywhere.  I don't know anything about cmake and Greg is an expert.  I
>> want him to be able to manage that build system without my oversight.  I
>> trust him.  I do not want to grant Greg merge access for code that has
>> anything to do with our C++ engine.  He might be a great C++ programmer,
>> but he hasn't expressed he wants that access or ever submitted C++ code for
>> me to review and merge myself, so I want to protect Greg from accidentally
>> merging in someone's PR which includes C++ engine code.
>>
>> In SVN this is easy.  Attached is our SVN access file.  Help me translate
>> this workflow to Github.  There must be some way to restrict merges based
>> on the merging user and files modified in the PR.  Or at least require a
>> review by certain users bases on the files modified in the PR.
>>
>> Help me :)
>>
>> Troy
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm refusing to get Subversion
>> going. It's simply that it's too much work that I haven't bothered and
>> don't foresee doing so anytime soon.
>>
>> And, with no setup to automatically test the scripts in all the
>> environments they must support, it's not likely others are willing to
>> commit this on my behalf.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42 Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>>
>>> I think you misunderstood Greg.
>>>
>>> There is a long campaign and strong feeling to have the project on Git
>>> but there is no agreement or movement to that. And it seems Greg is pausing
>>> his contributions until that matter is resolved.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>>
>>> On 12 Mar 2023, at 15:51, ZdPo Ster  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> I am sorry, but I did not get the point of your reply.
>>> I do not use subversion - I use git-svn as proposed several months ago
>>> on this forum. But current cmake configuration expects everybody to use
>>> subversion, which is wrong.
>>> These patches improve 

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Peter von Kaehne]

I think I own the CrossWire organization though not sure anymore. I will look into it this weekend and approve you to the highest level if I can do soSent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”On 17 Mar 2023, at 19:28, Greg Hellings  wrote:Troy,I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help point in the right direction, a couple of questions:Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and using GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that is just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the future? Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine the recommendations and conversion path.In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about their implementation. Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-ownersIf you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have admin rights there to address #1.--GregOn Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts  wrote:
  

  
  
I don't want this to turn into a debate.
  
  I agree, we need to move source control to git.
I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github
  for the visibility to draw other developers.
To move forward with this:
1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire'
  organization, which I currently don't have.
2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also
  surprised we have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to
  have on github for posterity).
  3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a
  solution that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for
  merging PRs into our master repository without my approval FOR
  CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REPO they own or are trusted to approve.
This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from
  moving from SVN to git.  If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy
  way to elevate permissions for accounts for parts of the
  repository.  I don't want to have to approve all changes!  I trust
  our pumpkin holders to care for their parts of the repository.
We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but
  they do not handle this well.  e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings
  full write access to merge any PR which updates any of our cmake
  scripts in all folders everywhere.  I don't know anything about
  cmake and Greg is an expert.  I want him to be able to manage that
  build system without my oversight.  I trust him.  I do not want to
  grant Greg merge access for code that has anything to do with our
  C++ engine.  He might be a great C++ programmer, but he hasn't
  expressed he wants that access or ever submitted C++ code for me
  to review and merge myself, so I want to protect Greg from
  accidentally merging in someone's PR which includes C++ engine
  code.
In SVN this is easy.  Attached is our SVN access file.  Help me
  translate this workflow to Github.  There must be some way to
  restrict merges based on the merging user and files modified in
  the PR.  Or at least require a review by certain users bases on
  the files modified in the PR.
Help me :)
Troy



On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:


  
  Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm
refusing to get Subversion going. It's simply that it's too much
work that I haven't bothered and don't foresee doing so anytime
soon.


And, with no setup to automatically test the
  scripts in all the environments they must support, it's not
  likely others are willing to commit this on my behalf.
  
  
  --Greg

  
  
  
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42
  Peter von Kaehne 
  wrote:


  I think you misunderstood Greg. 


There is a long campaign and strong feeling to have the
  project on Git but there is no agreement or movement to
  that. And it seems Greg is pausing his contributions until
  that matter is resolved. 


Peter
  
  Sent from my phone. Please forgive
misspellings and weird “corrections”
  
On 12 Mar 2023, at 15:51, ZdPo
  Ster 
  

Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Greg Hellings]

Troy,

I know we've discussed the merge issue in the past. In order to help point
in the right direction, a couple of questions:

Do you still envision self hosting the repository as you have SVN and using
GitHub to mirror, or do you anticipate self hosting a repository that is
just an insurance policy against GitHub becoming unfriendly in the future?
Most popular self hosting Git supports both push and pull to GitHub
repositories, but the one you anticipate being the source will determine
the recommendations and conversion path.

In the Git world, the feature you're looking at seems to be known as Code
Owners. It's a relatively newer feature. Here is GitHub documentation about
their implementation.
Https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners

If you anticipate doing most of the work on a self hosted solution and
pushing GitHub as the mirror, I can look for their technique.

I'll look into the Crosswire organization on GitHub to see if I have admin
rights there to address #1.

--Greg

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 14:09 Troy A. Griffitts  wrote:

> I don't want this to turn into a debate.
>
> I agree, we need to move source control to git.
>
> I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the
> visibility to draw other developers.
>
> To move forward with this:
>
> 1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire' organization,
> which I currently don't have.
>
> 2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also surprised we
> have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to have on github for
> posterity).
> 3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a solution
> that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for merging PRs into
> our master repository without my approval FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REPO
> they own or are trusted to approve.
>
> This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from moving from
> SVN to git.  If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy way to elevate
> permissions for accounts for parts of the repository.  I don't want to have
> to approve all changes!  I trust our pumpkin holders to care for their
> parts of the repository.
>
> We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but they do not
> handle this well.  e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings full write access to
> merge any PR which updates any of our cmake scripts in all folders
> everywhere.  I don't know anything about cmake and Greg is an expert.  I
> want him to be able to manage that build system without my oversight.  I
> trust him.  I do not want to grant Greg merge access for code that has
> anything to do with our C++ engine.  He might be a great C++ programmer,
> but he hasn't expressed he wants that access or ever submitted C++ code for
> me to review and merge myself, so I want to protect Greg from accidentally
> merging in someone's PR which includes C++ engine code.
>
> In SVN this is easy.  Attached is our SVN access file.  Help me translate
> this workflow to Github.  There must be some way to restrict merges based
> on the merging user and files modified in the PR.  Or at least require a
> review by certain users bases on the files modified in the PR.
>
> Help me :)
>
> Troy
>
>
> On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:
>
> Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm refusing to get Subversion
> going. It's simply that it's too much work that I haven't bothered and
> don't foresee doing so anytime soon.
>
> And, with no setup to automatically test the scripts in all the
> environments they must support, it's not likely others are willing to
> commit this on my behalf.
>
> --Greg
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42 Peter von Kaehne  wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstood Greg.
>>
>> There is a long campaign and strong feeling to have the project on Git
>> but there is no agreement or movement to that. And it seems Greg is pausing
>> his contributions until that matter is resolved.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>>
>> On 12 Mar 2023, at 15:51, ZdPo Ster  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I am sorry, but I did not get the point of your reply.
>> I do not use subversion - I use git-svn as proposed several months ago on
>> this forum. But current cmake configuration expects everybody to use
>> subversion, which is wrong.
>> These patches improve cmake build:
>>
>>-  that will work also with git-svn
>>- MSVC build
>>- fix depreciated
>>
>> AFAIK it should cause no harm for other combinations, just improve
>> current state.
>>
>> Zdenko
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:18, Greg Hellings 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never bothered to get Subversion setup on my local machine.
>>> Remembering the setup, plus my credentials, and how to use it is more labor
>>> than I've been willing to spend on this effort. If, in the future, I
>>> overcome that inertia then I'll happily test and apply this patch.
>>>
>>> 

[sword-devel] CrossWire and git

[Troy A. Griffitts]

I don't want this to turn into a debate.

I agree, we need to move source control to git.

I even mostly agree we should do most of our dev work on github for the 
visibility to draw other developers.


To move forward with this:

1) I would actually need access to the github 'crosswire' organization, 
which I currently don't have.


2) I am happy to migrate our 27 repos there (yes, I was also surprised 
we have 27, but even these old ones would be nice to have on github for 
posterity).
3) After #2, I would love for Github experts to help me find a solution 
that effectively grant elevated access to individuals for merging PRs 
into our master repository without my approval FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE 
REPO they own or are trusted to approve.


This #3 item had been the primary element holding us back from moving 
from SVN to git.  If you are unaware, SVN has a very easy way to elevate 
permissions for accounts for parts of the repository.  I don't want to 
have to approve all changes!  I trust our pumpkin holders to care for 
their parts of the repository.


We've discussed, in the past, submodules for handle this, but they do 
not handle this well.  e.g., I want to grant Greg Hellings full write 
access to merge any PR which updates any of our cmake scripts in all 
folders everywhere.  I don't know anything about cmake and Greg is an 
expert.  I want him to be able to manage that build system without my 
oversight.  I trust him.  I do not want to grant Greg merge access for 
code that has anything to do with our C++ engine.  He might be a great 
C++ programmer, but he hasn't expressed he wants that access or ever 
submitted C++ code for me to review and merge myself, so I want to 
protect Greg from accidentally merging in someone's PR which includes 
C++ engine code.


In SVN this is easy.  Attached is our SVN access file.  Help me 
translate this workflow to Github.  There must be some way to restrict 
merges based on the merging user and files modified in the PR.  Or at 
least require a review by certain users bases on the files modified in 
the PR.


Help me :)

Troy


On 3/17/23 11:24, Greg Hellings wrote:
Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm refusing to get 
Subversion going. It's simply that it's too much work that I haven't 
bothered and don't foresee doing so anytime soon.


And, with no setup to automatically test the scripts in all the 
environments they must support, it's not likely others are willing to 
commit this on my behalf.


--Greg

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42 Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

I think you misunderstood Greg.

There is a long campaign and strong feeling to have the project on
Git but there is no agreement or movement to that. And it seems
Greg is pausing his contributions until that matter is resolved.

Peter

Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird
“corrections”


On 12 Mar 2023, at 15:51, ZdPo Ster  wrote:


I am sorry, but I did not get the point of your reply.
I do not use subversion - I use git-svn as proposed several
months ago on this forum. But current cmake configuration expects
everybody to use subversion, which is wrong.
These patches improve cmake build:

  *  that will work also with git-svn
  * MSVC build
  * fix depreciated

AFAIK it should cause no harm for other combinations, just
improve current state.

Zdenko

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:18, Greg Hellings
 wrote:

I've never bothered to get Subversion setup on my local
machine. Remembering the setup, plus my credentials, and how
to use it is more labor than I've been willing to spend on
this effort. If, in the future, I overcome that inertia then
I'll happily test and apply this patch.

--Greg

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 5:34 AM ZdPo Ster
 wrote:

Any update on this (after 3.5 months)?

Zdenko

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 at 21:53, Greg Hellings
 wrote:

Thanks. I am not privy to the patches email inbox, so
this mailing list is the way to reach me for CMake
things. I'll review these when I have the opportunity.

--Greg

On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, 13:46 Peter von Kaehne
 wrote:



How to suggest improvements to the sword project?



You did it the right way. It just is a bit on/off
as a project. GHellings is the cmake pumpkin
holder as far as I know. I bcc him on a different
email address.

Peter




BR,

Zdenko

-- Forwarded message -
From: *ZdPo Ster* 
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 at 22:22
Subject: cmake patches
To: 


Hello,

Re: [sword-devel] Fwd: cmake patches

[Greg Hellings]

Indeed. It's not a principled stand that I'm refusing to get Subversion
going. It's simply that it's too much work that I haven't bothered and
don't foresee doing so anytime soon.

And, with no setup to automatically test the scripts in all the
environments they must support, it's not likely others are willing to
commit this on my behalf.

--Greg

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 09:42 Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

> I think you misunderstood Greg.
>
> There is a long campaign and strong feeling to have the project on Git but
> there is no agreement or movement to that. And it seems Greg is pausing his
> contributions until that matter is resolved.
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from my phone. Please forgive misspellings and weird “corrections”
>
> On 12 Mar 2023, at 15:51, ZdPo Ster  wrote:
>
> 
> I am sorry, but I did not get the point of your reply.
> I do not use subversion - I use git-svn as proposed several months ago on
> this forum. But current cmake configuration expects everybody to use
> subversion, which is wrong.
> These patches improve cmake build:
>
>-  that will work also with git-svn
>- MSVC build
>- fix depreciated
>
> AFAIK it should cause no harm for other combinations, just improve current
> state.
>
> Zdenko
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:18, Greg Hellings 
> wrote:
>
>> I've never bothered to get Subversion setup on my local machine.
>> Remembering the setup, plus my credentials, and how to use it is more labor
>> than I've been willing to spend on this effort. If, in the future, I
>> overcome that inertia then I'll happily test and apply this patch.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 5:34 AM ZdPo Ster  wrote:
>>
>>> Any update on this (after 3.5 months)?
>>>
>>> Zdenko
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 at 21:53, Greg Hellings 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks. I am not privy to the patches email inbox, so this mailing list
 is the way to reach me for CMake things. I'll review these when I have the
 opportunity.

 --Greg

 On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, 13:46 Peter von Kaehne  wrote:

>
> How to suggest improvements to the sword project?
>
>
>
> You did it the right way. It just is a bit on/off as a project.
> GHellings is the cmake pumpkin holder as far as I know. I bcc him on a
> different email address.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Zdenko
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: ZdPo Ster 
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 at 22:22
> Subject: cmake patches
> To: 
>
>
> Hello,
>
> please find 3 few patches related to cmake build (tested on windows
> with MSVC 2019):
>
>1. cmake_fix_deprecation.patch - cmake version 3.23.2 produce
>depreciation warning for old minimum version, co IMO it is time to 
> increase
>expected cmake version
>2. cmake_fix_msvc.patch - there is no "/O3" options in current
>MSVC[1]
>3. cmake_git_svn.patch - I use git svn for accessing code, but
>cmake produce error because of missing svn executable. He is patch that
>fixed it + code for detecting svn revision (MYSVN_WC_REVISION) from git
>
> [1]
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/o-options-optimize-code?view=msvc-160
>
> Zdenko
>
> ___
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
> ___
 sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
 http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
 Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

>>> ___
>>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
>>> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>>
>> ___
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
>> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
> ___
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
> ___
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
___
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page