[Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)

Lex Trotman elextr at xxxxx
Thu Apr 28 04:01:37 UTC 2011

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) contributors to Geany  are
> using Git (via git-svn).  The workflow for those who don't have commit
> access on the subversion repository, when contributing to Geany is
> sub-optimal (to put it politely).  SourceForge is painfully slow and the
> interface for viewing SVN source code online isn't great.

Agree with all of the above.

> I think the reason GitHub/Gitorious is mentioned so much is not only because
> of the "Git" in their name, but also because it allows people who don't have
> commit access to actually be active members in the community, by means of
> having their public forked repositories, sending merge/pull requests, etc.

Whatever host is chosen, it must support non-project users having public forks.

> Pros from the thread:
> - No need to maintain changelog and authors files

Changelog and authors are still needed for tarballs, but maybe they
can be automated?

> - Proper attribution, blame and history for contributors and not having to
> put "Thanks" in all the commit messages.

Still needed as above.

> - Built-in Wiki software

That could be useful to take some load off Enrico and his servers,
currently the project still depends heavily on his resources.

> Obviously I'm not suggesting that the SourceForge project page is deleted,
> just switching the main development activity to elsewhere.  We could have a
> git/svn mirror over at SourceForge still, and even keep their bug/feature
> tracker, though I can't see why, since it's pretty lousy.
> It really wouldn't be hard either, the whole "switch" be done in probably
> 10-15 minutes, maybe 1-2hrs to wait for the history to be imported.  There's
> no real reason it needs to be a big deal either, we could test out another
> project site and keep it the way it currently is still with not much extra
> effort, just someone/somescript needs to push to the new project page after

Does your somescript mean that both sites could work for an interim
period with the old one being deprecated for later removal?


More information about the Devel mailing list