[Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)

Colomban Wendling lists.ban at xxxxx
Mon May 9 18:12:21 UTC 2011

Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 16:16, Colomban Wendling
> <lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> 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.


>>> - No need to maintain changelog and authors files
>> That's not true. Our ChangeLog don't contain each and every commit, nor
>> necessarily the whole commit message.
>> Although I don't personally second such ChangeLog (mostly because we
>> have to maintain it and it's the biggest source of conflicts), I
>> understand the point of Nick and Enrico to keep it, and won't start
>> discussion on this again.
> Could you point me to the discussion? I've missed that one. (I too
> find a manual-maintained ChangeLog to be too much effort with too
> little gain.)

Hum, seems it actually was about Geany-Plugins ChangeLog... anyway,
here's the archive:

>>> 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.
>> The difficult part is moving bug tracking I guess. If we end up having 2
>> bug trackers it'd become quite a pain :/
> 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 rather
> cautious before moving the bug tracker to GitHub. At the moment they
> are offering hosting of open source projects for free but there's no
> guarantee it will be like that in the future as well. This is no
> problem with the git repository if they get evil - you can always
> upload the repository somewhere else and update a few links on the
> geany's home page. However with the bug tracker it would be a much
> more painful process.

Well... this makes sense, but having the but tracker on SF and the code
on GitHub seems a bit like a suboptimal option -- though since SF don't
really link bug tracker and VCS maybe it'd not really change anything.

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
year because GitHub decided not to continue to provide (free) hosting
for us, it'd not be really good.

But yeah, switching to Git doesn't even mean going away from SF (though
it couldn't be bad :D), they also offers Git repositories. Just no fancy
around like merge requests, reviews & co.

I haven't either checked the other sites (Gitorious, ?) deeper, maybe
they are good candidates if we don't want the BT functionality? don't
know -- apart that I already have and account on Gitorious and wasn't
scared by their policy.

>>> 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 committing to SVN.  Basically all it would
>>> take beyond that is for one of the founders/core members to take some
>>> time to setup an account and push the code.
>> Before moving all main commiters should agree (e.g. Nick and Enrico),
> Enrico doesn't care, you like it, so the one who will have to decide
> is Nick :-).

Yep ^^

>> but I think the creating par would not be the real problem. As discussed
>> further later in thread the problem is more setting up correct hooks to
>> keep all repos up to date.
> But those hooks were meant to be used to have a git mirror on GitHub
> if there's no VCS switch (mirroring the current git mirror of SVN). I
> don't see any point in having multiple git mirrors if you switch to
> git (well, actually everybody's personal clone would be such a
> mirror).

I think we shouldn't drop e.g. the git.geany.org mirror if we can keep
it, so we'd need a hook in the official repo to push to it or whatever.


More information about the Devel mailing list