[Geany-devel] Git Switch (again)

[Colomban Wendling]

Le 10/05/2011 01:34, Matthew Brush a écrit :
> On 05/09/11 11:12, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>> Le 09/05/2011 19:35, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> 
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> From what I can tell, the majority of the bugs in the SF tracker are
> either closed, open but will never get resolved or no longer apply to
> current versions, so I don't know how much of a big deal it would be to
> start moving away from it, of course always leaving it (possibly
> read-only?) for reference.

Maybe, need to check but might not be that painful (BTW, don't GitHub
offers a SF BT import feature? :D)

>> 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.
> 
> Speculating on the future of any of the project hosting sites is just
> that, speculation.  They have different business models, like SF with ad
> revenue, GitHub with private paid accounts, Gitorious with extra
> services (and probably $ from Nokia), and Google Projects with Google's
> plan for total world domination.
> 
> If I had to make a guess, I'd say it would be more likely for SF to go
> belly up due to lousy services, mass exodus to better project sites and
> it not being financially worthwhile for GeekNet.
> 
> Put simply, AFAIK, none of these projects sites offer a guarantee that
> they will not shutdown, go paid only, or otherwise change their
> services, so I don't think speculation should be a primary factor in
> deciding on a project site.

Agreed as said in another mail, apart that I doubt SF will really die,
just maybe become even more crappy by the years.

>> 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.
> 
> I can't say I'm personally opposed to Gitorious, but to me it just seems
> like a stripped-down version of GitHub, missing lots of the cool
> features.  Of all the project hosting sites I've used though, the only
> two I really dislike are SourceForge and Launchpad followed farther by
> Google Projects.

Well, again, I have no real opinion on this, apart that yeah, GitHub
*seems* (haven't tested it) to have more cool features.
I was suggesting something else only because of the speculations about
GitHub's future ;)

Anyway, I think we should wait for Nick's opinion, and probably again
Enrico and Frank ones about the BT stuff.

Cheers,
Colomban