Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Gitlab.com as the primary git entry point for Sourcemage

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Gitlab.com as the primary git entry point for Sourcemage
  • Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:22:39 +0200

Am Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:55:48 -0500
schrieb David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>:

> At the very least, this can be a mirror, but I'm proposing that we give
> it a shot. Since the "grumpy old folks" can continue to operate the
> exact same way they're operating right now. Just modify the .git/config
> to point to a different origin.

About those folks, grumpy and old or not: Isn't there anyone else with
at least an opinion about this? I'd expect at least one more reply than
my own. What's the census of people who care about Source Mage
development?

> Gitlab is an opensource project, so philosophically it's something I
> feel comfortable using SourceMage with. Github would probably get us
> greater visibility (https://github.com/SourceMage I have this too), but
> I'd rather lend our support and usage to a true Open Source project. We
> can mirror on github as well

Eh, wait, I just picked the github debian stuff as an example of a
mainstream distro (for a definition of mainstream) having some _some_
presence with a "cloud" git hoster. If we have to pick one, I'd of
course go with the Open Source one. But: Gitlab very much looks like
Sourceforge in the early times to me. There used to be a community
version of that software, too.

In the end, it's a service offered by a company that makes money
offering that service (just not directly when offering to us).
Arguments about shady motivations apply to either of Github or Gitlab,
I see no difference there.

> resources to do many more things. We've literally got one guy paying for
> all this out of pocket. (Not to imply we're not thankful for this.)

The least of our problems is the paying for the server (at least I
understood Jeremy that way, and if he couldn't affort it anymore, Vlad
or me could provide servers, too), IMHO. Since our userbase and
developer base is so small, we also do not need much infrastructure or
bandwidth.

> Yeah, commits would go to gitlab first, and then a webhook would trigger
> instant mirroring of it, so scm.sourcemage.org would lag behind barely
> at all. It's actually quite difficult to handle it in both directions.

Hm, but actually, the design of git _should_ make it possible, eh? I
mean, it's distributed. Having several entry points is one of the
points of it. But I understand that a two-way automatism is likely to
misfire occasionally.

> If anything, this would make it easier to put more eyes on the things. I
> cannot guarantee that it will bring more people, but having a trivial
> way for someone who's interested to come in, make a pull request, see
> that it's accepted, or commented on, and accepted will probably result
> in a better experience than what we've got right now. The number of
> people allowed I'm also pretty sure that this won't affect too many of
> the things you "ranted" about :)

Well, my main point to the end was that this decision implies giving
the hosting duties from people we somewhat know and trust (or people
who the person we know trusts) to a totally unknown (arbitrarily large)
set of people who have no incentive to care about our belongings.

I know, it's the new millennium, it's the cloud and everyone trusts
everyone and cares for each other's wellbeing. I just wanted to have it
said.


Alrighty then,

Thomas

Attachment: pgp60C1y2K3YZ.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page