On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:26:05 -0700 John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Geert Janssens > <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> wrote: > > > This discussion has been had multiple times before and frankly I > > hope this will be the last time. > > > > The previous discussion didn't end in an explicit consensus, but I > > think we were close to finding a compromise at least. A summary: > > > > - Nobody opposed to using github. In fact most developers are in > > favour of using it. > > - John indicated that github is good, but we shouldn't use the > > github issue tracker or pull requests. They appear to be a source > > of trouble. > > - Mostly Derek insists on having a canonical repository on > > code.gnucash.org as well. Others haven't explicitly agreed or > > disagreed on this. > > - Yawar proposed to have the main activity run on github, and pull > > periodically to code.gnucash.org. The latter can be considered > > canonical. > > > > Let's continue to build on this. I propose this setup: > > > > One master repo hosted on github. One canonical repo on > > code.gnucash.org pulls periodically from this master repo to keep > > in sync. > > > > Only selected developers have commit access to the github > > repository. This is all access control we need here. > > > > All others that wish to contribute have to fork/clone this > > repository and send in patches. > > > > It looks like we better don't use github's issue tracker and pull > > request mechanisms. John stated this explicitly on the previous > > discussion, but there is criticism on these tools also in other > > (large) projects. Instead we continue to use our own contribution > > process, being: patches have to be sent to bugzilla or the mailing > > list (the latter has a higher risk of getting lost). Issues should > > be tracked in bugzilla. Ideas and requests could be tracked in > > either bugzilla or uservoice. > > > > There is also a feature on github to annotate patches (write inline > > comments). I don't know it's advantages or drawbacks, but given the > > opinion on pull requests and issue tracker, it's probably safe to > > not promote the annotation tool so far. Instead discussion of > > patches continues on the mailing lists as is now. > > > > I have not really decided yet how to handle access control to the > > canonical repository on code.gnucash.org yet. In principle nobody > > needs to push anything to this repo. It should simply fully > > automatically pull from the github master repo. But just in case > > for maintenance or other situations, I think it makes sense to > > allow push access by the same developers that currently can commit > > to svn on code.gnucash.org. > > > > I have deliberately skipped implementation details in this mail > > (how to enforce access control, how to trigger push/pull > > requests,...). I first would like to come to a consensus on the > > concept. Then work out the details. > > > > So any issues with this proposal ? (If so, please use bugzilla, not > > the github issue tracker ;p ). Or if you agree, please state so as > > well, so we can get an idea if we can pursue this proposal or not. > > Sounds good to me. > > Regards, > John Ralls > This gets my vote. Bugzilla is a far better tracking system than Guthub, IMHO. Mike Evans -- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel