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: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com>
  • To: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Github as primary source repository for SourceMage?
  • Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:55:18 -0300

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.

> * 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.

> * 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!




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page