Conversely, we've had several situations lately where critical UX patches have been delayed because it's cumbersome right now for non-committers to contribute back to uPortal.
- Jen On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Cris J Holdorph wrote: > Call me pessimistic, but... there seem to be two givens in the world of > software that concern me with this change at this time. > > 1) a ".0" release is notoriously not perfect and is usually followed on very > quickly by a .1 release shortly after to fix some glaring bug that will > prevent most people from using it. > > 2) switching to a new source code control system is a slow process that takes > a while to get over all the hurdles of process, development, migration, etc. > > So, there's no guarantee either one of these would be true for uportal, > but... if they were. Then we could be in a situation where we're unable to > produce a critically needed 4.0.1 release, because we're not completely up to > development speed on git. > > For example, what if there is an import/export bug, you want Drew Wills to > fix. He's the best guy for the job. If the code was still in svn, he > probably still has a checkout of it and he can take a look at it today. But > if the code only exists in git, he might not have gotten around to doing > anything with git yet. Even the github svn url you can use, would still > require him changing his environment. > > My 'vote' was 0. Basically I'm saying I won't stand in the way of it > happening, but I don't believe the time is right to fully support it right > now either. > > ---- Cris J H > > On 08/31/2011 02:05 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote: >> I'm curious as yo why the concern about the closeness to the 4.0 >> release? I was actually thinking that doing the switch as soon as >> possible after 4.0 would be better as it would give more time for >> developers to get used to the change before a 4.0.1 is needed. >> >> -Eric >> >> On 8/31/11 3:05 PM, Cris J Holdorph wrote: >>> +/- 0 >>> >>> I think making this change so soon after the uPortal 4.0.0 release, is >>> a mistake. I think it would be better to let that release simmer for a >>> while to shake out if there were any major problems. >>> >>> If this vote was to take place in a month, or at least 2 weeks after >>> some university was running uPortal 4.0.0 in production, then my vote >>> might be different. >>> >>> ---- Cris J H >>> >>> On 08/31/2011 12:26 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote: >>>> I'd like to see uPortal's source code moved to git and hosted on GitHub. >>>> There have been quite a few folks that have been working on uPortal 4, >>>> uMobile or are otherwise interested that have asked about using git. >>>> After looking into it a bit more I think it would be a very valuable >>>> change for uPortal. >>>> >>>> For those not familiar Git is a _distributed_ source control tool. What >>>> that means is there is no true central repository like there is with >>>> SVN. Developers don't really checkout some version of the code, they >>>> clone the entire project when doing work. That doesn't prevent the >>>> convention of a central repository which is what a site like GitHub >>>> provides. A place to host a clone of the project that by convention we >>>> agree is the master copy of the project. >>>> >>>> GitHub adds some very nice social-coding aspects to git. Primarily it >>>> provides a VERY easy interface that allows anyone to clone a project, >>>> make changes and commit them to their clone, then make a pull request on >>>> the master project. Once that has happened a simple click of a button is >>>> all it takes for any developer with commit access on the master to >>>> accept the changes and merge them in. This process makes it very easy >>>> for people without direct commit access to commit changes that are >>>> reviewed by a core developer before merging in and significantly >>>> simplifies the work of the core developers. >>>> >>>> When there was first talk among about switching I solicited feedback >>>> from the Fluid project which recently moved from SVN to Git. I highly >>>> recommend reading the resulting thread which highlights a lot of the >>>> pros and cons http://old.nabble.com/Perspectives-on-Git-td31852449.html >>>> >>>> There is an eclipse Git Plugin, a TortiseGit client which is a clone of >>>> TortiseSVN and I believe most other IDEs have either built in or plugin >>>> support for git. >>>> >>>> Some other useful links: >>>> Git for those without Version Control background - >>>> http://hoth.entp.com/output/git_for_designers.html >>>> GitHub's wonderful help documentation - http://help.github.com/ >>>> TortiseGit - http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/ >>>> >>>> Some questions that I can try and answer before they come up: >>>> - The uPortal code in svn at source.jasig.org would likely be left in >>>> place, we would just make the entire /uPortal directory read-only >>>> - We're going to filter out the documentation and website files that >>>> were included in early versions of uPortal 2 to reduce the project >>>> repository size. >>>> >>>> Since this is a big change (and since I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks >>>> starting Friday) I'm planning on leaving this vote open for a while. +1, >>>> 0, -1 to vote and if you vote -1 you need to include a detailed >>>> reasoning for your -1 vote. >>>> >>>> -Eric >>> >> > > -- > You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: > [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
