Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Github as primary source repository for SourceMage?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Github as primary source repository for SourceMage?
  • Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:16:10 -0500

On 09/17/2014 09:55 PM, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org> wrote:
>> Given a recent revival of interest in SourceMage, I brought up on IRC
>> that we could move our primary repositories, wiki, and issue tracking to
>> Github.
>
> +1 for code, for the rest, I don't like the way Github manages it.
>
> Also, I will argue against having a Wiki as it is used nowadays, but
> for a different reason... we have been keeping all the important
> information disconnected from the underlying projects, and thus made
> it very difficult to keep up to date. That must be fixed if we want to
> have something useful.
>
> IMHO, we should re-purpose the Wiki and move all the important
> information next to the code where it can be converted to HTML and PDF
> periodically, in a nice book-like format.
>
> <...>
>> * Github is arguably the go-to place for Open Source software
>> * Pull requests are stupid easy
>
> The way PRs are formatted by Github is plain wrong. But then, we do
> have our own usage problems, like the insurmountable amount of merge
> commits, or the lack of uniformity in commit messages.

Can you be a little more specific about how the pull requests are
formatted wrong? It just gives you a unified diff presentation (and now
also does side-by-side)

>
>> * Pull requests for our wiki will be stupid easy (also no spam!)
>> * Issue tracking is robust and capable without being overcomplicated
>
> I never liked the way it is handled, queries are very limited, it's
> overall far less powerful. I would prefer using another service for
> that.

As an example: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm/issues has a
reasonably robust search mechanism in the filters bin. I'm usually able
to find whatever I'm looking for. Additionally the labels make it
reasonably easy to group, and if we go with milestones you can group
things that gate a release (maybe more useful for cauldron and sorcery
than grimoire, but whatev) I think that meets most of what we need out
of a "I've got a problem" tracking thing along with noting when the
resolution happened.

What's missing that you need?

>
>> * It's still git, with all the power git has
>> * Basically infinite bandwidth
>> * Probably better uptime
>> * Something we can just use, without having to maintain
>
> +1.
>
> <...>
>> Personally, I don't feel that using Github would lock us into any vendor
>> specific things. As things stand right now, we can very easily take our
>> repo and walk, going to *anything* else. The only "proprietary" bits
>> would be the issue tracking, and there is currently an API to access
>> that data, so we could export that and walk away also.
>>
>> I'm sure you all have opinions on this, and since we haven't had any
>> elections in forever (like two years?) and at least one person has
>> expressed that "PL can't just do this, we need to have a vote" I'm not
>> exactly sure how I can proceed without pissing anyone off heh.
>>
>> Technically the people who want to do good work could fork the heck out
>> of SourceMage and start doing all this right now anyway under another
>> name, and we can do something else. I'm not sure exactly how much power
>> I have as PL, I don't wish to abuse it, but I'm also not willing to let
>> us languish in limbo, unable to form a consensus.
>>
>> If we make Github our primary repo location, do we damn our future
>> selves into vendor lock-in? Are we going against the principles of Open
>> Source by using something that isn't Open Source? Are the benefits of
>> being on Github worth the consequences? Are the benefits of being on
>> Github benefits we even want?
>
> I would go for it as long as we don't use something github-specific,
> and mainly because even if we can take the data away anytime, I
> dislike the tools for the most part, they tried so hard to make it
> work for the average joe that they broke them for people like me!
>

Got any non-self hosted alternatives? Got any self-hosted alternatives
that are super easy to maintain? Git integration would be nice, so that
issues can be closed via a commit message (that's a nice to have, but
it's super convenient when you start using it)

Personally I'd prefer a non-self-hosted solution, because that's one
less thing to maintain if we don't need to.

--
David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page