Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:32 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:
>
>> I actually manage the team at google that develops gerrit, and yes,
>> the new UI is much better, and I think it also much better than
>> GitHub's pull-request model.
>>
>> I am happy to help with setting up an instance for LilyPond if that
>> helps anyone.
>>
>> FWIW. I think the scaremongering about Microsoft's plans for GitHub is
>> exaggerated: I think Microsoft is interested in GH because of MS'
>> cloud business. Getting closer to developers will get them a better
>> shot of turning them into MS cloud developers.
>
> Well, their legal department needs something to draft after the
> Windows 10 EULA and I don't think anybody will bother to keep their
> hands out of the cookie jar.  And if Microsoft puts a friendly pitch at
> upgrading clients to a more efficient and exclusive protocol in like it
> pitched a friendly update to Windows 10, of course providing that you
> really, really wanted it...
>
> Microsoft has a history of making people choke on "how bad can it be?".
> They'll not start right away to avoid the initial bad press.  At least
> not extensively.  But they did not pay $7.5bn in order to just keep
> GitHub doing the same things it would have done anyway.

If MS were interested in the business, they wouldn't have paid this
much. It's much more likely they are interested in the global
developer community that GH created.  I don't think they would pay
that much to get access to that community only to then scare them away
immediately.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Karlin High]

On 6/4/2018 3:14 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

I actually manage the team at google that develops gerrit, and yes,
the new UI is much better, and I think it also much better than
GitHub's pull-request model.

I am happy to help with setting up an instance for LilyPond if that
helps anyone.


I had done a little research on Gerrit before the April 2018 discussion 
about GitLab. I gathered Gerrit would be one of the closest things to 
LilyPond's current Rietveld code review. As an open-source project, 
LilyPond would have a chance of free hosting for Gerrit on Red Hat's 
OpenShift platform, and possibly other places.





Gerrit also has integration plug-ins for several issue trackers.



It looks like there isn't one yet for Apache Allura, although there is a 
"base" framework that gets extended for each issue tracker integration. 
So developing something for Allura would not have to be done from scratch.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:

> I actually manage the team at google that develops gerrit, and yes,
> the new UI is much better, and I think it also much better than
> GitHub's pull-request model.
>
> I am happy to help with setting up an instance for LilyPond if that
> helps anyone.
>
> FWIW. I think the scaremongering about Microsoft's plans for GitHub is
> exaggerated: I think Microsoft is interested in GH because of MS'
> cloud business. Getting closer to developers will get them a better
> shot of turning them into MS cloud developers.

Well, their legal department needs something to draft after the
Windows 10 EULA and I don't think anybody will bother to keep their
hands out of the cookie jar.  And if Microsoft puts a friendly pitch at
upgrading clients to a more efficient and exclusive protocol in like it
pitched a friendly update to Windows 10, of course providing that you
really, really wanted it...

Microsoft has a history of making people choke on "how bad can it be?".
They'll not start right away to avoid the initial bad press.  At least
not extensively.  But they did not pay $7.5bn in order to just keep
GitHub doing the same things it would have done anyway.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

I actually manage the team at google that develops gerrit, and yes,
the new UI is much better, and I think it also much better than
GitHub's pull-request model.

I am happy to help with setting up an instance for LilyPond if that
helps anyone.

FWIW. I think the scaremongering about Microsoft's plans for GitHub is
exaggerated: I think Microsoft is interested in GH because of MS'
cloud business. Getting closer to developers will get them a better
shot of turning them into MS cloud developers.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Étienne Beaulé  wrote:
> Le lun. 4 juin 2018, à 15 h 17, Wols Lists  a
> écrit :
>
>> On 04/06/18 17:58, David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking,
>> >> > single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions"
>> >> > would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations.
>>
>> > Frankly, I'd expect most systems to work better than our current split
>> > between SourceForge as an issue tracker and Rietveld (a
>> > Subversion-centric platform) for git commit reviews.
>> >
>> LibreOffice uses gerrit, but I get the impression that's not that user
>> friendly. And LO has the resources to put in to ironing out at least
>> some of the rough edges.
>>
>> Gerrit does not include a bug tracker, and that does seem like the main
> focus here. I must agree that Gerrit is not quite user-friendly, but it is
> currently going under a redesign (PolyGerrit,
> https://gitenterprise.me/category/polygerrit/) which is much more friendly.
>
> Wikimedia currently uses a combination of Phabricator (
> https://www.phacility.com/) and Gerrit. Phabricator is a suite of
> applications, including for code review and an issue tracker, which
> includes tags and the like. It is much more user friendly, but is somewhat
> heavy. Importing tasks and code could be done.
>
> Étienne
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel



-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Étienne Beaulé]

Le lun. 4 juin 2018, à 15 h 17, Wols Lists  a
écrit :

> On 04/06/18 17:58, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking,
> >> > single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions"
> >> > would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations.
>
> > Frankly, I'd expect most systems to work better than our current split
> > between SourceForge as an issue tracker and Rietveld (a
> > Subversion-centric platform) for git commit reviews.
> >
> LibreOffice uses gerrit, but I get the impression that's not that user
> friendly. And LO has the resources to put in to ironing out at least
> some of the rough edges.
>
> Gerrit does not include a bug tracker, and that does seem like the main
focus here. I must agree that Gerrit is not quite user-friendly, but it is
currently going under a redesign (PolyGerrit,
https://gitenterprise.me/category/polygerrit/) which is much more friendly.

Wikimedia currently uses a combination of Phabricator (
https://www.phacility.com/) and Gerrit. Phabricator is a suite of
applications, including for code review and an issue tracker, which
includes tags and the like. It is much more user friendly, but is somewhat
heavy. Importing tasks and code could be done.

Étienne
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Wols Lists]

On 04/06/18 17:58, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking,
>> > single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions"
>> > would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations.

> Frankly, I'd expect most systems to work better than our current split
> between SourceForge as an issue tracker and Rietveld (a
> Subversion-centric platform) for git commit reviews.
> 
LibreOffice uses gerrit, but I get the impression that's not that user
friendly. And LO has the resources to put in to ironing out at least
some of the rough edges.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> On 6/4/2018 10:17 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> $7.5B in stock.
>
> And their competitor GitLab promptly offered a 75% discount for one
> year of their paid plans. They're claiming a 10x increase in projects
> getting migrated onto their service.
>
> 
>
>> While I am not particularly happy that our issue/review
>> migration plans got us stranded on SourceForge
>
> Back in April their was a discussion about whether GitLab would be a
> good fit for LilyPond development.
>
> 
>
> In there, I did not see a lot of input from major contributors with
> the current system. I kept thinking, "We'll hear from David K anytime
> now, with some important foundational insight everyone else is
> overlooking."

Well, I have nothing to offer there.  The work will have to be done by
someone and I am not going to be able to offer help on a reliable
ongoing basis.  Doing that kind of work already tripped the transition
to our own version of Allura that was chosen because we had volunteers
at some point interested in helping with the effort.

> Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking,
> single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions"
> would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations.

Frankly, I'd expect most systems to work better than our current split
between SourceForge as an issue tracker and Rietveld (a
Subversion-centric platform) for git commit reviews.

>> Terms and Conditions for free project hosting already included the
>> caveat that projects may be cancelled at any time for any reason.
>> For strategic projects like, say, Samba, ReactOS, Wine, LibreOffice
>> and a few others that may in some respect be considered a thorn in
>> Microsoft's side, this makes a platform choice of GitHub a quite less
>> appealing option than it had been before.
>
> Definitely a concern for those projects, I agree.

It's like building a house at the foot of a volcano.  Possibly good soil
and pricing but unnerving.

> But Microsoft has seemingly become much more accepting of Linux and
> open-source things in the past few years. With Azure Sphere OS they're
> even sort-of doing their own Linux distro.

I don't see them contributing back voluntarily.  GPL and LPGL draw lines
of accountability based on copyright law and a technological landscape
that has changed since the times even of GPLv3, and Linux is GPLv2 in
major parts.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Karlin High]

On 6/4/2018 10:17 AM, David Kastrup wrote:


$7.5B in stock.


And their competitor GitLab promptly offered a 75% discount for one year 
of their paid plans. They're claiming a 10x increase in projects getting 
migrated onto their service.





While I am not particularly happy that our issue/review
migration plans got us stranded on SourceForge


Back in April their was a discussion about whether GitLab would be a 
good fit for LilyPond development.




In there, I did not see a lot of input from major contributors with the 
current system. I kept thinking, "We'll hear from David K anytime now, 
with some important foundational insight everyone else is overlooking."


But some things that I did get out of that discussion was that 
SourceForge Allura's issue status tracking features should be equaled or 
exceeded by any new system, that single-patch commits are likely 
preferred to branch-merge commits, and that ideally the comments for 
issue-based discussion could be separated form code-review discussion.


Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking, 
single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions" 
would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations.


And the GitLab feature request for Import from Allura still stands, with 
7 upvotes.





Terms and Conditions for free project hosting already included the
caveat that projects may be cancelled at any time for any reason.  For
strategic projects like, say, Samba, ReactOS, Wine, LibreOffice and a
few others that may in some respect be considered a thorn in Microsoft's
side, this makes a platform choice of GitHub a quite less appealing
option than it had been before.


Definitely a concern for those projects, I agree. But Microsoft has 
seemingly become much more accepting of Linux and open-source things in 
the past few years. With Azure Sphere OS they're even sort-of doing 
their own Linux distro.


Microsoft-watcher Paul Thurrott quoting someone from the company:

"Microsoft is a multi-platform company, and has been for years. We chose 
Linux as the OS for two primary reasons: 1) the size of the OS footprint 
and 2) needs of our silicon partner ecosystem. The custom Linux kernel 
found in Azure Sphere has been optimized for an IoT environment and 
shared under an OSS license so that silicon partners can rapidly enable 
new silicon innovations."


(paid article) 


--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[Wols Lists]

On 04/06/18 16:17, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> $7.5B in stock.  While I am not particularly happy that our issue/review
> migration plans got us stranded on SourceForge, it looks like we at
> least dodged a potentially larger bullet.
> 
> Terms and Conditions for free project hosting already included the
> caveat that projects may be cancelled at any time for any reason.  For
> strategic projects like, say, Samba, ReactOS, Wine, LibreOffice and a
> few others that may in some respect be considered a thorn in Microsoft's
> side, this makes a platform choice of GitHub a quite less appealing
> option than it had been before.
> 
That shouldn't be a problem for git - it's a DISTRIBUTED system, so you
either say github is the master with mirrors elsewhere, or the master is
elsewhere and mirrored on github.

Yes, every time I come across discussions about migrating to/from github
et al, it's always the issue tracker that's the problem ...

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

GitHub has been acquired by Microsoft

[David Kastrup]

$7.5B in stock.  While I am not particularly happy that our issue/review
migration plans got us stranded on SourceForge, it looks like we at
least dodged a potentially larger bullet.

Terms and Conditions for free project hosting already included the
caveat that projects may be cancelled at any time for any reason.  For
strategic projects like, say, Samba, ReactOS, Wine, LibreOffice and a
few others that may in some respect be considered a thorn in Microsoft's
side, this makes a platform choice of GitHub a quite less appealing
option than it had been before.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel