Hey,
> To me it seems that the coordination of two source control tools seems to
be a lot of work.
We already have multiple copies of the repo. Every clone is a copy of the
repo. GitHub will just be another copy. Furthermore there is little
difference between changes on a branch on a remote or changes on a branch
of your local box. The workflow is nearly identical. You could take the
stance that branches are evil and that there should only be a single holy
master branch, though then you are doing the git thing wrong.
I'm confident enough about this to take ALL of this work on me personally,
so its a non issue.
> Niklas worried about the delay this could introduce
If we sync once a week (and we can easily do more), then this will not be
much different then the delay of translations for a branch that exists for
more then a week. And the syncing problem is very theoretical at this
point. We should pay attention to this if a lot of development happens via
the GitHub repo. If we simply accept patches to be submitted there, the
number of merges ought to be rather low, and we can easily push to the WMF
repo after every merge. So NO delay.
> and Nischay worried (like others at SMWCon) about the confusion of having
some extensions here and others [there].
Confusion from which perspective? The developer contributing to the code,
or the user using it? In either case, I again do not see any real issues if
we handle this sanely. The existing support stays as it is for both groups,
so no one is forced to change anything. We just add an additional
capability. One which can be used by those who ARE (currently, very much
non-theoretical) confused by Gerrit and the WMF workflow.
> If we had an automated synchronisation of GitHub and Gerrit, then the
advantages would combine and the disadvantages would vanish, right?
The automated synchronization could save some work at some point. However
as I already indicated, I'm quite happy to be this automation for now. I
don't think it makes sense to invest a lot of time into additional
infrastructure while no clear need for it has been demonstrated. So yes, to
some extend this will leave us with the best of both worlds. It's not
completely the case we get rid of all disadvantages in the current setup if
we use both systems, though those are significantly less important then
supporting contributions via GitHub.
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
Android apps secure.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
