On 05/10/11 14:05, Jiří Techet wrote:
I really have nothing specific against GitHub (actually from what I
have seen I like it better than Gitorious) and I have no evidence they
are planning to change their policy. What I wanted to say is that the
selection of the right VCS hosting site is much l
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 20:12, Colomban Wendling
wrote:
> Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>> I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be
>> done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a
>> lot of work while migration to git is quite easy.
On 05/09/11 17:16, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Maybe, need to check but might not be that painful (BTW, don't GitHub
offers a SF BT import feature? :D)
It wouldn't surprise me if it does have such a feature (or script
available somewhere). Alternatively, I could probably hack something
togethe
Le 10/05/2011 01:34, Matthew Brush a écrit :
> On 05/09/11 11:12, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>> Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>
>>>
>>> I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be
>>> done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a
>>> lot
Le 10/05/2011 00:43, Lex Trotman a écrit :
>> But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we
>> have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I
>> read "I'd not be really surprised if it happened" --, do we really want
>> to use this? I mean, if we nee
On 05/09/11 11:12, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
I'd say that VCS migration and bug tracking system migration should be
done separately and independently. Migration of the bug tracker is a
lot of work while migration to git is quite easy. I'd also be rath
> But the point on the possible future of GitHub is important IMO. if we
> have no guarantee for the long-term viability -- and when I read you I
> read "I'd not be really surprised if it happened" --, do we really want
> to use this? I mean, if we need to switch to another official repo next
> yea
Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 16:16, Colomban Wendling
> wrote:
>>> - Effort required to move the project
>>
>> That's the big part!
>
> Not that bad if you move the repository only to GitHub - see below.
Right.
>>> - No need to maintain changelog and autho
On Mon, 9 May 2011 19:44:15 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>2011/5/8 Enrico Tröger :
>>>Hi Enrico,
>>>
>>>in principle you have to put something like
>>>
>>>git push --mirror your_github_repository
>>>
>>>under .git/hooks/post-receive (in the local geany repository). When
>>>creating the github repository, yo
2011/5/8 Enrico Tröger :
>>Hi Enrico,
>>
>>in principle you have to put something like
>>
>>git push --mirror your_github_repository
>>
>>under .git/hooks/post-receive (in the local geany repository). When
>>creating the github repository, you should create a new public/private
>>key pair and make
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 16:16, Colomban Wendling
wrote:
>> Cons from the previous thread:
>> - It's more social
>
> I have some cons against social networks, but there are pros here, so...
>
>> - Not plain enough (I guess too Web 2.0/feature-full/cluttered)
>
> I don't personally mind if it's not i
On 5/9/2011 9:27 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
I second the Git switch, so 1/4 (and I guess Frank will second too).
Just note I have no experience using GitHub (or even no real with
Gitorious) or working with pull requests and co, but I'd be happy to git
it a try -- and probably adopt it.
Cheers
Le 03/05/2011 00:43, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:33, Thomas Martitz
> wrote:
>> Am 02.05.2011 00:18, schrieb Jiří Techet:
>>>
>>> Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch
>>> (it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much
>
Le 28/04/2011 23:43, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01, Matthew Brush wrote:
>> On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote:
- No need to maintain changelog and authors files
>>>
>>> Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they
>>> can be automated?
>>
Hey,
Sorry for the response delay, but not I answer:
Le 28/04/2011 03:36, Matthew Brush a écrit :
> Summary from previous thread:
> The people in the thread who do not want to switch to Git, or those who
> don't seem to care either way, are those who have commit access to
> Subversion on SourceFo
On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:53:21 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:51 +1000, Lex wrote:
>>
>>>2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch,
>at
On 05/02/11 15:43, Jiří Techet wrote:
So direct question: Enrico, Nick, what's your opinion on the git
switch? As Matthew said, it seems that it's possible to access a
github repository both via svn and git so both the current workflow
and git-based workflow should be possible. Of course I'll try
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:33, Thomas Martitz
wrote:
> Am 02.05.2011 00:18, schrieb Jiří Techet:
>>
>> Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch
>> (it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much
>> enthusiasm from the core developers for the move
Am 02.05.2011 00:18, schrieb Jiří Techet:
Yes, I would also prefer if there was a proper and complete git switch
(it would greatly save maintainer's work IMO) but I haven't seen much
enthusiasm from the core developers for the move so it's better if
people who use git have at least an up-to-date
Am 02.05.2011 03:33, schrieb Matthew Brush:
[1] https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support
[2] https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support
Ah, that was what I was asking for in my other mail. However, it seems
not very ideal for SVN users.
Best regards.
__
On 05/01/11 14:46, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 30.04.2011 11:48, schrieb Matthew Brush:
I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to
accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches
from there, etc.? If it's only going to be another read-only git
mirror
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 23:46, Thomas Martitz
wrote:
> Am 30.04.2011 11:48, schrieb Matthew Brush:
>>
>> I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to
>> accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches from
>> there, etc.? If it's only going to be anoth
Am 30.04.2011 11:48, schrieb Matthew Brush:
I think the more important part is, are the core developers going to
accept pull/merge requests on github/gitorious, apply commits/patches
from there, etc.? If it's only going to be another read-only git
mirror, it's kind of pointless. I don't mea
Am 30.04.2011 11:52, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
But we have git.geany.org.
The mirror GIT repositories are synced from SVN and the sync is
triggered by commit mails.
So, we do have a kind of our own commit hook, from SVN as well as from
GIT. I just don't know what I should do in the hook :).
As
2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:51 +1000, Lex wrote:
>
>>2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>>>
>>>
One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at
least the current geany git repository could be set up t
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:51 +1000, Lex wrote:
>2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at
>>>least the current geany git repository could be set up to push
>>>changes to github so peop
On 04/30/11 02:07, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at
least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes
to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror
2011/4/30 Enrico Tröger :
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>
>
>>One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at
>>least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes
>>to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from
>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:43:39 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>One more idea - even if the core developers don't want the switch, at
>least the current geany git repository could be set up to push changes
>to github so people who want to use git have an up-to-date mirror from
>which they can clone and create t
Hi Matthew,
you couldn't express my feelings better.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01, Matthew Brush wrote:
> On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>>
>>> - No need to maintain changelog and authors files
>>
>> Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they
>> can be automated
On 04/27/11 21:01, Lex Trotman wrote:
- No need to maintain changelog and authors files
Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they
can be automated?
Seems not too hard with git log and some shell script[1]. I think the
original thread also mentions a way (or that it
Nice summary Matthew,
As far as I remember it, seems to be accurate.
> Summary from previous thread:
> The people in the thread who do not want to switch to Git, or those who
> don't seem to care either way, are those who have commit access to
> Subversion on SourceForge. Most (if not all) cont
Hi,
I'd like to revive this thread[1]. I wasn't around during the initial
thread but Jiri has just pointed me to it and I read it through. I'd
like to summarize (at least my take) on that thread and then list some
pros and cons to stimulate a discussion.
Disclaimer:
I am not an expert on a
33 matches
Mail list logo