Consider migrating to GitHub?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
SourceForge CVS to GitHub?

SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
for contribution.

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Paul Vinkenoog
Mark Rotteveel wrote:

> Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
> SourceForge CVS to GitHub?
>
> SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
> on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
> for contribution.

No objections here, but does anybody have any experience with this kind
of migration? (Preferably including history.)

Myself, I'm a basic GIT user and I only use it locally.


Paul Vinkenoog

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

firebirdlists

On 18/12/2016 11:48:34 AM, Paul Vinkenoog <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mark Rotteveel wrote:

> Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
> SourceForge CVS to GitHub?
>
> SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
> on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
> for contribution.
Helen Borrie: I don't see how moving the source from one obscure repository to a different obscure repository would heighten visibility or lower any barrier.

If there's a good reason to change, I'd go with it, albeit it currently aint broke so there be nothing to fix.  PaulV has it nicely set up for use by the translators and it is all well documented, enough so that those of us who actually DO stuff regularly, rather than just talk about doing it, have our local setups that are more or less automated. One of us can always step in to assist people who don't want to work with a repository for whatever reason.  I don't see how changing the repository would (or should) alter that. 
My personal experience so far with GitHub is that it is a dog to work with, actually, given that I don't upload or download any programming code, only documentation.  I guess if I had to, I'd find a way to make it useful for me to use.  I just can't think of a good reason right now to spend time and energy on creating a solution to a non-existent problem.

Helen


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Lester Caine
On 18/12/16 02:24, Helen Borrie wrote:

>> Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
>> > SourceForge CVS to GitHub?
>> >
>> > SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
>> > on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
>> > for contribution.
> *Helen Borrie:* I don't see how moving the source from one obscure
> repository to a different obscure repository would heighten visibility
> or lower any barrier.
>
> If there's a good reason to change, I'd go with it, albeit it currently
> aint broke so there be nothing to fix.  PaulV has it nicely set up for
> use by the translators and it is all well documented, enough so that
> those of us who actually DO stuff regularly, rather than just talk about
> doing it, have our local setups that are more or less automated. One of
> us can always step in to assist people who don't want to work with a
> repository for whatever reason.  I don't see how changing the repository
> would (or should) alter that.
> My personal experience so far with GitHub is that it is a dog to work
> with, actually, given that I don't upload or download any programming
> code, only documentation.  I guess if I had to, I'd find a way to make
> it useful for me to use.  I just can't think of a good reason right now
> to spend time and energy on creating a solution to a non-existent problem.

CVS still has a number of plus features that github deliberately
destroyed in order to make supporting CODE a priority. When PHP project
was looking to move - yet again - Hg get the vote for a system that
worked better, but the 'github' marketing angle won the day - even given
it's know faults! So now I have an Hg/Mercurial setup locally, which
handles CVS, SVN and GIT transparently and allows working easily between
all four. BUT I would still prefer the clean way that CVS handled
modular project. GIT ( and actually Hg) still does not accept that
scripted languages and documentation is much better handled as a series
of inter-related projects rather than one all encompassing code base.
sub-repo's are frond on in both while CVS modules are still a perfect
solution, and projects that broke perfectly good CVS repositories into a
series of GIT repo's still have no tools to put the hwole back together
again.

PHP still has not plugged all the holes in it's GIT process and often
gets cross contamination, so until there IS a reason to change ... why
create all that extra work? And certainly don't put anything on github
... use a private git repository which is the one thing PHP has right.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
In reply to this post by Paul Vinkenoog
On 17-12-2016 23:46, Paul Vinkenoog wrote:

> Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>
>> Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
>> SourceForge CVS to GitHub?
>>
>> SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
>> on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
>> for contribution.
>
> No objections here, but does anybody have any experience with this kind
> of migration? (Preferably including history.)

I migrated Jaybird from CVS to Subversion and then to git (GitHub). The
migration from Subversion to git was facilitated by GitHub, but their
tooling does not support CVS. However the tool I used to go from CVS to
Subversion also has a variant to go to git.

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
In reply to this post by firebirdlists
On 18-12-2016 03:24, Helen Borrie wrote:

>
>> On 18/12/2016 11:48:34 AM, Paul Vinkenoog <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't it time to consider migrating the documentation repository from
>> > SourceForge CVS to GitHub?
>> >
>> > SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository
>> > on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier
>> > for contribution.

> *Helen Borrie:* I don't see how moving the source from one obscure
> repository to a different obscure repository would heighten visibility
> or lower any barrier.

For visibility: the documentation project will be in the same group on
GitHub as the Firebird project itself. This makes discovery of the
project a lot easier.

Also these days GitHub is the go-to place for hosting open-source
projects. More people know git and GitHub than CVS. GitHub provides a
lot of features that simplify contributing to a project even if you
don't have commit rights (eg pull requests).

> If there's a good reason to change, I'd go with it, albeit it currently
> aint broke so there be nothing to fix.  PaulV has it nicely set up for
> use by the translators and it is all well documented, enough so that
> those of us who actually DO stuff regularly, rather than just talk about
> doing it, have our local setups that are more or less automated. One of
> us can always step in to assist people who don't want to work with a
> repository for whatever reason.  I don't see how changing the repository
> would (or should) alter that.

The main advantage I see are that one-off contributions become simpler,
and those might lead to more.

> My personal experience so far with GitHub is that it is a dog to work
> with, actually, given that I don't upload or download any programming
> code, only documentation.  I guess if I had to, I'd find a way to make
> it useful for me to use.  I just can't think of a good reason right now
> to spend time and energy on creating a solution to a non-existent problem.

As a sidenote: SourceForge considers CVS type projects to be deprecated
these days, don't be surprised if we get a notice in the future that we
need to migrate anyway.

 From https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/CVS/ :

"CVS is no longer available for new projects, we only offer limited
support for CVS for projects previously using it on the Classic
SourceForge system.

We recommend that projects upgrade to a more modern SCM, like
Subversion, rather than using CVS. CVS has limitations which newer SCM
solutions have been designed to overcome. We continue to support CVS for
those projects who decide that CVS adequately supports their needs."

--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
In reply to this post by Lester Caine
On 18-12-2016 10:41, Lester Caine wrote:
> CVS still has a number of plus features that github deliberately
> destroyed in order to make supporting CODE a priority.

Git != GitHub.

 > When PHP project

> was looking to move - yet again - Hg get the vote for a system that
> worked better, but the 'github' marketing angle won the day - even given
> it's know faults! So now I have an Hg/Mercurial setup locally, which
> handles CVS, SVN and GIT transparently and allows working easily between
> all four. BUT I would still prefer the clean way that CVS handled
> modular project. GIT ( and actually Hg) still does not accept that
> scripted languages and documentation is much better handled as a series
> of inter-related projects rather than one all encompassing code base.
> sub-repo's are frond on in both while CVS modules are still a perfect
> solution, and projects that broke perfectly good CVS repositories into a
> series of GIT repo's still have no tools to put the hwole back together
> again.

That is not really an argument against moving the documentation project
given it is only one module.

And technically git has submodules etc, but that is really a pain to
work with, and I've never really had the need for something like that.

--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Köditz, Martin
In reply to this post by Mark Rotteveel-2

Though I'm a programmer, I find it very hard to use CVS. I had some problems using CVS when Helen committed some changes. I feel more comfortable using git.

 

>> SourceForge itself considers CVS deprecated, and having the repository

>> on GitHub might increase visibility and will likely lower the barrier

>> for contribution.

 

As mentioned earlier, CVS is considered as deprecated and I had problems finding an adequate client. Well this is not really a hurdle, but it’s much easier to get modern git clients. We are trying to win new contributors, so we should make the entry as easy as possible.

 

> No objections here, but does anybody have any experience with this kind
> of migration? (Preferably including history.)

 

I’ve already migrated a CVS project to git (not in such a dimension). But I think it is possible and if wished I can do some research on this. And Mark has some experiences too.

 

Also I don’t think we have to use git sub modules (it is really a nightmare). We could use an own git repo for the manual.

 

I would also offer myself to edit the docbuilders guide in that case (review by Helen).

 

What do you think?

 

Regards

Martin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Lester Caine
In reply to this post by Mark Rotteveel-2
On 18/12/16 11:19, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> Git != GitHub.

But it's the reason most projects use as an excuse to promote git over
other options :(
And it's trying to promote itself as yet another social media site
detracts from the REAL jobs that many years ago SF did so well but
without actually achieving it.

My point is that github is a distraction most of the time and promoting
it more does not help develop a better - fully integrated - solution to
project management. One can have a presence ON github and all the other
alternatives without 'moving to' github ... and moving a perfectly
functional repository does not need git messing it up when it does not
need the compromises git introduces.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Andre van Zuydam
So bouncing in here on a tangent,  I've done this with a couple of Source forge projects, simply set Source forge to clone the Github project or visa versa.  The only reason I would suggest having things on Github is for more visibility.  Anyway my five cents.  You can still continue to commit as always, just have things cloned on both.   Each versioning system has its pros and cons, those of us who started with CVS may have moved on to use other systems but hey, its such a mission to switch things that work.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lester Caine <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18/12/16 11:19, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> Git != GitHub.

But it's the reason most projects use as an excuse to promote git over
other options :(
And it's trying to promote itself as yet another social media site
detracts from the REAL jobs that many years ago SF did so well but
without actually achieving it.

My point is that github is a distraction most of the time and promoting
it more does not help develop a better - fully integrated - solution to
project management. One can have a presence ON github and all the other
alternatives without 'moving to' github ... and moving a perfectly
functional repository does not need git messing it up when it does not
need the compromises git introduces.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs



--


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
On 19-12-2016 11:39, Andre van Zuydam wrote:
> So bouncing in here on a tangent,  I've done this with a couple of
> Source forge projects, simply set Source forge to clone the Github
> project or visa versa.  The only reason I would suggest having things on
> Github is for more visibility.  Anyway my five cents.  You can still
> continue to commit as always, just have things cloned on both.   Each
> versioning system has its pros and cons, those of us who started with
> CVS may have moved on to use other systems but hey, its such a mission
> to switch things that work.

That works (barely) if you already have a git project on SourceForge,
but as far as I know not if you have CVS project on SourceForge.

If a conversion is going to happen (but the strong resistance seems to
indicate no), then I'd prefer going GitHub the way the core project did
as well, instead of having a hybrid solution where you try to balance
between GitHub and SourceForge and having to keep both repositories in-sync.

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mark Rotteveel-2
In reply to this post by Lester Caine
On 19-12-2016 11:08, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 18/12/16 11:19, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>> Git != GitHub.
>
> But it's the reason most projects use as an excuse to promote git over
> other options :(
> And it's trying to promote itself as yet another social media site
> detracts from the REAL jobs that many years ago SF did so well but
> without actually achieving it.
>
> My point is that github is a distraction most of the time and promoting
> it more does not help develop a better - fully integrated - solution to
> project management. One can have a presence ON github and all the other
> alternatives without 'moving to' github ... and moving a perfectly
> functional repository does not need git messing it up when it does not
> need the compromises git introduces.

So your argument boils down to "I don't like git and GitHub, because
they 'won' the hearts and minds of the majority of the (open source)
development community".

That is exactly one of the reasons I propose to move the repository to
GitHub: that is where the people are, and a lot of people know how to
use it.

Lets face it: the Firebird documentation project could do with more
active contributors. Is moving to GitHub going to solve that: of course
not, but it might make it easier. Moving Jaybird to GitHub last year
lead to at least 4 (small and large contributions), including the
support for SRP.

You mention downsides/compromises that git brings to the table: exactly
what kind of compromises do you think the Firebird documentation project
specifically would experience with moving to git? As far as I know the
manual module is pretty straight-forward with a largely linear history,
and without use of obscure CVS features, so I don't see where those
compromises would be, and I'd really like to know. However, I can name
at least one benefit of moving to git: rename/move or copy with history,
and for moving to GitHub: contributions by pull request.

Also to be clear: I'm talking about moving the repository: the rest can
stay where it is if that is deemed better (eg you can disable issues if
you don't want to use the GitHub issue tracker, etc).

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Consider migrating to GitHub?

Mariuz
One argument i can give is that i can edit directly the files on github , so that is a lot faster for small fixes for the doc area

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Mark Rotteveel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19-12-2016 11:08, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 18/12/16 11:19, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>> Git != GitHub.
>
> But it's the reason most projects use as an excuse to promote git over
> other options :(
> And it's trying to promote itself as yet another social media site
> detracts from the REAL jobs that many years ago SF did so well but
> without actually achieving it.
>
> My point is that github is a distraction most of the time and promoting
> it more does not help develop a better - fully integrated - solution to
> project management. One can have a presence ON github and all the other
> alternatives without 'moving to' github ... and moving a perfectly
> functional repository does not need git messing it up when it does not
> need the compromises git introduces.

So your argument boils down to "I don't like git and GitHub, because
they 'won' the hearts and minds of the majority of the (open source)
development community".

That is exactly one of the reasons I propose to move the repository to
GitHub: that is where the people are, and a lot of people know how to
use it.

Lets face it: the Firebird documentation project could do with more
active contributors. Is moving to GitHub going to solve that: of course
not, but it might make it easier. Moving Jaybird to GitHub last year
lead to at least 4 (small and large contributions), including the
support for SRP.

You mention downsides/compromises that git brings to the table: exactly
what kind of compromises do you think the Firebird documentation project
specifically would experience with moving to git? As far as I know the
manual module is pretty straight-forward with a largely linear history,
and without use of obscure CVS features, so I don't see where those
compromises would be, and I'd really like to know. However, I can name
at least one benefit of moving to git: rename/move or copy with history,
and for moving to GitHub: contributions by pull request.

Also to be clear: I'm talking about moving the repository: the rest can
stay where it is if that is deemed better (eg you can disable issues if
you don't want to use the GitHub issue tracker, etc).

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel
_______________________________________________
Firebird-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
Loading...