Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Gonzalo Odiard]

>
>
> I had completely missed the chart activity, glad you mentioned it. Help is
> a strange case, it is was never submitted to ASLO.
>
>
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4051

repository:

https://github.com/godiard/help-activity

Other activities still in my personal github:

https://github.com/godiard/music-keyboard-activity
https://github.com/godiard/fototoon-activity
https://github.com/godiard/develop-activity
https://github.com/godiard/poll-activity
https://github.com/godiard/journalshare-activity
https://github.com/godiard/domino-activity
https://github.com/godiard/wikipedia-activity
https://github.com/godiard/write-books-activity
https://github.com/godiard/favorite-fonts-activity
https://github.com/godiard/welcome-activity

Gonzalo
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Gonzalo Odiard]

>
> fonts-1.xo
>

If this refer to http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4669
ther repository is:
https://github.com/godiard/favorite-fonts-activity

I can transfer it to sugarlbas if needed.

About all this movement, two comments (just ahumble opinion of a retired
sugar devel)

* Please, try hard to keep the git history, is very important for
development.
* Please, try hard to avoid unneeded repository movements, will confuse
your potential contributors. Discuss first, do it later.

Thanks for keep pushing Sugar!

Gonzalo
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, James

Thanks. I think we are getting to a productive discussion.

I doubt if there are many who have updated the activity.info to link to 
a personal repository (not an organization repository). However, 
certainly those requests should be honored.


If a developer has his own private (not organization) repository, how do 
we handle an issue raised against that activity? I visualize that we 
would want to know the version of Sugar on which it was run and the 
version of the activity. In that case, an attempt to reproduce the 
problem could potentially be made. Going forward, developers only need 
to make a commit when they change the version number in activity.info.


Any activity on git.sugarlabs.org that has no later repository on
GitHub or anywhere else should be cloned to GitHub.  This is so that
our Gitorious instance can be decommissioned.

This seems clear. In the case that no repository is visible, should I 
proceed as before, making the repository from ASLO?


I had completely missed the chart activity, glad you mentioned it. Help 
is a strange case, it is was never submitted to ASLO.


Tony


On 04/24/2017 03:48 PM, James Cameron wrote:

Yes, I'm familiar with the ASLO hosting directory on
download.sugarlabs.org with the (currently) four digit identification.

Your understanding is incomplete and to some extent in error.

Implode should not be forked from git.sugarlabs.org, as the current
maintainer has a public copy in their GitHub account and treats that
as the master from which to publish a bundle.  Several other
activities are in the same situation, such as Help and Chart.

Any activity on git.sugarlabs.org that has no later repository on
GitHub or anywhere else should be cloned to GitHub.  This is so that
our Gitorious instance can be decommissioned.

Gitorious was to have been set read-only, but this was not done; as a
result some development has continued there.

See also
https://developer.sugarlabs.org/contributing.md.html where it says

"Most activity repositories can be found in our GitHub sugarlabs
organization.

A few activity repositories are somewhere else; read the
activity/activity.info file, check the metadata on the
activities.sugarlabs.org app store, or the Activity page on
wiki.sugarlabs.org, or our deprecated gitorious instance."


On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:46:08PM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:

Apparently my English is a bit garbled. I apologize.

What I am doing is going down the list of activities on ASLO as
shown in download.sugarlabs.org where each activity is given a four
digit 'add-on' identification.

There were 137 with repositories already on github. For these, the
needed action had already been taken.

In making repositories for the 71, I created the repository from
ASLO. That was my faux pas. I should have checked git.sugarlabs.org.
No harm is done other than loss of my time.

Implode is one of the 24 with repositories on git.sugarlabs.org. I
intend to delete these 24.

As I understand the git team process, a repository on github is the
'master' and bundles for ASLO will be published from there. A clone
of the master is made by a developer to update the activity and the
result of the work is pushed back for merge. I doubt that anyone
advocates a private copy of one of the pinned repositories as the
master so why have one for an activity.

As I understand it, you believe the  activity repositories should be
added to github/sugarlabs as I have been doing.

Tony


On 04/24/2017 12:02 PM, James Cameron wrote:

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:

Hi James, Walter

I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
github/ sugarlabs.

Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.

But you omit repositories in other than git.sugarlabs.org?

For instance, Implode-17 has activity.info file with correct
repository value, yet you had created one for it?

Activities may have no repositories, a repository on
git.sugarlabs.org, a repository on laptop.org, a repository held by an
individual, or a repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs

For some activities, the repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs is
a clone of a master repository somewhere else.


My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported
to github,

Not if there is a more recent repository than git.sugarlabs.org


James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
github/ sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult.

No, I didn't say that.


I would advocate Ignacio's idea that we have a
github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the sugarlabs repositories
for Sugar.

I've stated why I think that is bad.


In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until
there is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be
done.

My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each
activity in ASLO so that we can 

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[James Cameron]

Yes, I'm familiar with the ASLO hosting directory on
download.sugarlabs.org with the (currently) four digit identification.

Your understanding is incomplete and to some extent in error.

Implode should not be forked from git.sugarlabs.org, as the current
maintainer has a public copy in their GitHub account and treats that
as the master from which to publish a bundle.  Several other
activities are in the same situation, such as Help and Chart.

Any activity on git.sugarlabs.org that has no later repository on
GitHub or anywhere else should be cloned to GitHub.  This is so that
our Gitorious instance can be decommissioned.

Gitorious was to have been set read-only, but this was not done; as a
result some development has continued there.

See also
https://developer.sugarlabs.org/contributing.md.html where it says

"Most activity repositories can be found in our GitHub sugarlabs
organization.

A few activity repositories are somewhere else; read the
activity/activity.info file, check the metadata on the
activities.sugarlabs.org app store, or the Activity page on
wiki.sugarlabs.org, or our deprecated gitorious instance."


On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:46:08PM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> Apparently my English is a bit garbled. I apologize.
> 
> What I am doing is going down the list of activities on ASLO as
> shown in download.sugarlabs.org where each activity is given a four
> digit 'add-on' identification.
> 
> There were 137 with repositories already on github. For these, the
> needed action had already been taken.
> 
> In making repositories for the 71, I created the repository from
> ASLO. That was my faux pas. I should have checked git.sugarlabs.org.
> No harm is done other than loss of my time.
> 
> Implode is one of the 24 with repositories on git.sugarlabs.org. I
> intend to delete these 24.
> 
> As I understand the git team process, a repository on github is the
> 'master' and bundles for ASLO will be published from there. A clone
> of the master is made by a developer to update the activity and the
> result of the work is pushed back for merge. I doubt that anyone
> advocates a private copy of one of the pinned repositories as the
> master so why have one for an activity.
> 
> As I understand it, you believe the  activity repositories should be
> added to github/sugarlabs as I have been doing.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> On 04/24/2017 12:02 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> >>Hi James, Walter
> >>
> >>I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
> >>github/ sugarlabs.
> >>
> >>Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.
> >But you omit repositories in other than git.sugarlabs.org?
> >
> >For instance, Implode-17 has activity.info file with correct
> >repository value, yet you had created one for it?
> >
> >Activities may have no repositories, a repository on
> >git.sugarlabs.org, a repository on laptop.org, a repository held by an
> >individual, or a repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs
> >
> >For some activities, the repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs is
> >a clone of a master repository somewhere else.
> >
> >>My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
> >>git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported
> >>to github,
> >Not if there is a more recent repository than git.sugarlabs.org
> >
> >>James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
> >>github/ sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult.
> >No, I didn't say that.
> >
> >>I would advocate Ignacio's idea that we have a
> >>github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the sugarlabs repositories
> >>for Sugar.
> >I've stated why I think that is bad.
> >
> >>In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until
> >>there is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be
> >>done.
> >>
> >>My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each
> >>activity in ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',
> >I don't agree with this goal.
> >
> >If there was any consultation on this goal; those who make the most
> >commits should have the most say.  ;-)
> >
> 

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Tony Anderson]

Apparently my English is a bit garbled. I apologize.

What I am doing is going down the list of activities on ASLO as shown in 
download.sugarlabs.org where each activity is given a four digit 
'add-on' identification.


There were 137 with repositories already on github. For these, the 
needed action had already been taken.


In making repositories for the 71, I created the repository from ASLO. 
That was my faux pas. I should have checked git.sugarlabs.org. No harm 
is done other than loss of my time.


Implode is one of the 24 with repositories on git.sugarlabs.org. I 
intend to delete these 24.


As I understand the git team process, a repository on github is the 
'master' and bundles for ASLO will be published from there. A clone of 
the master is made by a developer to update the activity and the result 
of the work is pushed back for merge. I doubt that anyone advocates a 
private copy of one of the pinned repositories as the master so why have 
one for an activity.


As I understand it, you believe the  activity repositories should be 
added to github/sugarlabs as I have been doing.


Tony


On 04/24/2017 12:02 PM, James Cameron wrote:

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:

Hi James, Walter

I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
github/ sugarlabs.

Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.

But you omit repositories in other than git.sugarlabs.org?

For instance, Implode-17 has activity.info file with correct
repository value, yet you had created one for it?

Activities may have no repositories, a repository on
git.sugarlabs.org, a repository on laptop.org, a repository held by an
individual, or a repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs

For some activities, the repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs is
a clone of a master repository somewhere else.


My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported
to github,

Not if there is a more recent repository than git.sugarlabs.org


James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
github/ sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult.

No, I didn't say that.


I would advocate Ignacio's idea that we have a
github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the sugarlabs repositories
for Sugar.

I've stated why I think that is bad.


In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until
there is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be
done.

My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each
activity in ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',

I don't agree with this goal.

If there was any consultation on this goal; those who make the most
commits should have the most say.  ;-)



___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:48:16AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> 1. The original repository is ASLO.

No, the originals were mostly on laptop.org and on developer web
sites, including Gitorious and GitHub.

> The git.sugarlabs.org was added later.

No, the Sugar Labs Gitorious instance was set up in 2009 before ASLO
was brought up later that year.

But ASLO is an app store, not version control.

> The intent, as I understand it, is to have the master source code
> under git version control on github as a replacement for
> git.sugarlabs.org.

No, the intent, as I understand it, is to move any still-remaining
activities from git.sugarlabs.org to github.com so that
git.sugarlabs.org can be shut down.

> The git record of the programming change from version to version
> should be invaluable in understanding how the activity evolved.

No, not really.  What is valuable is the commit history, not the
change from each release version.

I think you might be thinking that "version control" has a direct
relationship with release version numbers.  It doesn't.

Perhaps "revision control" is the better term for what we use Git for.

> Out of 71 repositories, 47 were not
> duplicates and so development history has been captured.

A history was captured, but it was not the commit history, so
information was destroyed.

> I assume you know that ASLO is short for
> activities.sugarlabs.org. It is not source code.

No, you're wrong.  ASLO is a web application with source code.  Go
look at it http://github.com/sugarlabs/aslo

> Yes, the original idea of ASLO is that individuals would create and
> submit activities. The permission schemes does not permit community
> maintenance.

The ASLO permissions scheme is written in source code of ASLO and
lists people as activity maintainers.

I think your main problem is that on GitHub is much easier to add new
users than it is on ASLO; because Aleksey and others who operate ASLO
are less available than GitHub.

> I believe the goal is to create a repository for each activity on
> ASLO so that the community can undertake further development and
> maintenance.

I think you're trying to substitute a more accessible permission
scheme by defaulting to GitHub.

> 2. Certainly if the community decides this was a bad idea, it can be
> easily corrected. However, this deserves discussion more than rants.

Indeed, right back at you.

> 3. There was a lot of discussion of this issue in connection with
> GCI 2016 where making these ports was the main task. This is when
> most of the 137 activities were added to the github/sugarlabs.

Interesting, thanks.  That may explain something; any discussion that
happened during GCI 2016 inside the Google Code-In framework won't
have captured opinions of those not engaged in GCI.

> I fully agree with the concern about dilution - I believe we should
> have a separate organizational github (e.g sugar-activities) for the
> activities.

Huh?  You have misunderstood my earlier mail; concern about the dilution
of the sugarlabs GitHub organisation by having a sugar-activities
organisation.

> However, the current course was adopted over a year ago and has not
> been further discussed.
> 
> The comment that everything  done was mechanical and unqualified is
> spot on. My faux pas with the duplicates is clear evidence of my
> being unqualified. I hope to prove educable.
> 
> 4. Here are some issues that deserve thought and comment.
> 
> In ASLO, the submitter specifies the license. The submitter is the
> assumed copyright owner. So can we assign a different license on
> github. Unfortuately the submitters choice of license is not
> displayed on ASLO but I have to believe it was recorded in the mysql
> database.

Yes, the license is not displayed to the app store user, but that's
peripheral to whether a license is declared in the source code in the
bundle.  You can review the ASLO source code to see it was recorded.

> I believe the activity.info should include the developer, summary,
> description, and license as well as a link to the repository on
> github plus any other valuable information displayed on ASLO. In
> this way, the ASLO site can display information provided and
> maintainable by the developer. This requires revisiting the current
> definition of activity.info. Perhaps the Readme file could contain
> this supplemental information to be added to the bundle by
> bundlebuilder.

That seems an unrelated issue, and I don't think this thread is the
place to bring it up.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> Hi James, Walter
> 
> I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
> github/ sugarlabs.
> 
> Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.

But you omit repositories in other than git.sugarlabs.org?

For instance, Implode-17 has activity.info file with correct
repository value, yet you had created one for it?

Activities may have no repositories, a repository on
git.sugarlabs.org, a repository on laptop.org, a repository held by an
individual, or a repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs

For some activities, the repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs is
a clone of a master repository somewhere else.

> My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
> git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported
> to github,

Not if there is a more recent repository than git.sugarlabs.org

> James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
> github/ sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult.

No, I didn't say that.

> I would advocate Ignacio's idea that we have a
> github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the sugarlabs repositories
> for Sugar.

I've stated why I think that is bad.

> In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until
> there is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be
> done.
> 
> My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each
> activity in ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',

I don't agree with this goal.

If there was any consultation on this goal; those who make the most
commits should have the most say.  ;-)

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Tony Anderson]

1. The original repository is ASLO. The git.sugarlabs.org was added 
later. The intent, as I understand it, is to have the master source code 
under git version control on github as a replacement for 
git.sugarlabs.org. The git record of the programming change from version 
to version should be invaluable in understanding how the activity 
evolved. Out of 71 repositories, 47 were not duplicates and so 
development history has been captured.


I assume you know that ASLO is short for activities.sugarlabs.org. It is 
not source code.


Yes, the original idea of ASLO is that individuals would create and 
submit activities. The permission schemes does not permit community 
maintenance. I believe the goal is to create a repository for each 
activity on ASLO so that the community can undertake further development 
and maintenance.


2. Certainly if the community decides this was a bad idea, it can be 
easily corrected. However, this deserves discussion more than rants.


3. There was a lot of discussion of this issue in connection with GCI 
2016 where making these ports was the main task. This is when most of 
the 137 activities were added to the github/sugarlabs. I fully agree 
with the concern about dilution - I believe we should have a separate 
organizational github (e.g sugar-activities) for the activities. 
However, the current course was adopted over a year ago and has not been 
further discussed.


The comment that everything  done was mechanical and unqualified is spot 
on. My /faux pas/ with the duplicates is clear evidence of my being 
unqualified. I hope to prove educable.


4. Here are some issues that deserve thought and comment.

In ASLO, the submitter specifies the license. The submitter is the 
assumed copyright owner. So can we assign a different license on github. 
Unfortuately the submitters choice of license is not displayed on ASLO 
but I have to believe it was recorded in the mysql database.


I believe the activity.info should include the developer, summary, 
description, and license as well as a link to the repository on github 
plus any other valuable information displayed on ASLO. In this way, the 
ASLO site can display information provided and maintainable by the 
developer. This requires revisiting the current definition of 
activity.info. Perhaps the Readme file could contain this supplemental 
information to be added to the bundle by bundlebuilder.


Tony

On 04/24/2017 07:08 AM, James Cameron wrote:

Dissent.


1.

For the duplication by Tony from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugarlabs;

- for the commit history, we still have the original repository for
   some activities.

- for the source code, now we have two places for some activities; the
   original repository, and a copy with a history collapsed to release
   versions.  While this may be helpful for users, it isn't helpful for
   developers.

As I'm a developer, I'll continue to use the original repositories
rather than the duplicated repositories.

I don't understand why this duplication was done.

The problems in activities.sugarlabs.org are fixed by editing the
source code and configuration files, not a transition to GitHub.  ASLO
is on GitHub and is a relatively simple web application.  See
https://github.com/sugarlabs/aslo/issues for some technical analysis
of the issues.


2.

For the duplication by Ignacio from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugar-activities, in addition to what others have said;

- it pollutes the search space of GitHub,

- it dilutes the /sugarlabs/ GitHub organisation.

Again, I don't understand why this duplication was done.


3.

Overall, I don't recall seeing any consultation on a transition from
ASLO to GitHub; no Wiki page, no sugar-devel@ posting, just a spray of
GitHub notifications.

The whole thing smacks of automaticity and unqualified work.  ;-)  But
I'm open to hearing what the plan is, in detail.  If it helps me, I'll
jump on board, but if it doesn't I'll avoid it.


4.

Repositories can be moved to GitHub with full commit history.  It's a
feature of GitHub that we have used well in the past.

.gitignore is documented in the Git manual.

README.md is Markdown source that GitHub presents on the default view
of a repository.  For an activity without one it could include parts
of the activity/activity.info file.

License must be clearly defined and compatible with GitHub's
requirements.  We cannot host repositories on GitHub that don't have a
license.


On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:

Thanks to all for the valuable suggestions.

Your advice seems to me to check on each activity in ASLO to see if it has a
repository on git.sugarlabs.org. Since there is no obvious way to know if the
current repository in git.sugarlabs.org is consistent with the version(s) on
ASLO.

Are you comfortable with making the most recent version on ASLO a build from
git.sugarlabs.org?

Should I send an email to the developer on git if active on github (or from

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[James Cameron]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:21:21PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 
> On Apr 23, 2017 7:08 PM, "James Cameron" <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote:
> 
> We cannot host repositories on GitHub that don't have a license.
> 
> That was true in the early days of github but it's no longer
> true. In fact it's a big problem, because a lot of stuff is posted
> on github without a libre license and requests to apply once often
> get ignored or worse. 

With respect to GitHub terms and conditions, yes.  Sorry, I meant
what Sugar Labs is willing to host on GitHub; i.e. as a constraint on
contributors to Sugar Labs.  Some sponsoring organisations do so
because Sugar is open source, and a change away from open source may
hurt those relationships.

It is unlikely there are many activities in ASLO that don't comply,
but it is still useful to recognise them; and duplication is one of
those times.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Dave Crossland]

On Apr 23, 2017 11:21 PM, "Tony Anderson"  wrote:

Hi James, Walter

I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
github/sugarlabs


Thank you Tony!

Unless I hear to the contrary, I'll delete these duplicates.


Sounds good to me


My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported to
github,


Yes, my understanding too - and after porting to github.com/sugarlabs then
that is the master copy


James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
github/sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult. I would
advocate
Ignacio's idea that we have a github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the
sugarlabs repositories for Sugar.


I disagree, I think a regular repo naming pattern and github search can
mitigate this reviewing concern, and using 2 orgs makes **searching** all
of the sugar codebase more difficult, which I think matters


In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until there is a
clear direction from the community on how it is to be done.

My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each activity in
ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',


I think it's a great goal!!
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Tony Anderson]

Hi James, Walter

I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in 
github/sugarlabs.


Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.

The duplicates are:

abecedarium-5.xo
amazonas_tortuga-2.xo
analyze_journal-5.xo
analyze-8.xo
anno-1.xo
annotate-1.xo
backup-5.xo
conozco_alimentos-2.xo
conozco_nicaragua-1.xo
conozco_paraguay-2.xo
fonts-1.xo
foodchain-4.xo
graph_plotter-9.xo
hittheballs_-1.xo
hop-a-round-2.xo
horsegame_-5.xo
implode-9.xo
jamflash-1.xo
journal_share-6.xo
kuku_anakula-5.xo
lanzar-2.xo
math_quwy-1.xo


Unless I hear to the contrary, I'll delete these duplicates.

My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on 
git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported to

github,

James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to 
github/sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult. I 
would advocate
Ignacio's idea that we have a github/sugaractivitiies which would leave 
the sugarlabs repositories for Sugar.



In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until there 
is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be done.


My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each activity 
in ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',


Tony

On 04/24/2017 07:08 AM, James Cameron wrote:

Dissent.


1.

For the duplication by Tony from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugarlabs;

- for the commit history, we still have the original repository for
   some activities.

- for the source code, now we have two places for some activities; the
   original repository, and a copy with a history collapsed to release
   versions.  While this may be helpful for users, it isn't helpful for
   developers.

As I'm a developer, I'll continue to use the original repositories
rather than the duplicated repositories.

I don't understand why this duplication was done.

The problems in activities.sugarlabs.org are fixed by editing the
source code and configuration files, not a transition to GitHub.  ASLO
is on GitHub and is a relatively simple web application.  See
https://github.com/sugarlabs/aslo/issues for some technical analysis
of the issues.


2.

For the duplication by Ignacio from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugar-activities, in addition to what others have said;

- it pollutes the search space of GitHub,

- it dilutes the /sugarlabs/ GitHub organisation.

Again, I don't understand why this duplication was done.


3.

Overall, I don't recall seeing any consultation on a transition from
ASLO to GitHub; no Wiki page, no sugar-devel@ posting, just a spray of
GitHub notifications.

The whole thing smacks of automaticity and unqualified work.  ;-)  But
I'm open to hearing what the plan is, in detail.  If it helps me, I'll
jump on board, but if it doesn't I'll avoid it.


4.

Repositories can be moved to GitHub with full commit history.  It's a
feature of GitHub that we have used well in the past.

.gitignore is documented in the Git manual.

README.md is Markdown source that GitHub presents on the default view
of a repository.  For an activity without one it could include parts
of the activity/activity.info file.

License must be clearly defined and compatible with GitHub's
requirements.  We cannot host repositories on GitHub that don't have a
license.


On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:

Thanks to all for the valuable suggestions.

Your advice seems to me to check on each activity in ASLO to see if it has a
repository on git.sugarlabs.org. Since there is no obvious way to know if the
current repository in git.sugarlabs.org is consistent with the version(s) on
ASLO.

Are you comfortable with making the most recent version on ASLO a build from
git.sugarlabs.org?

Should I send an email to the developer on git if active on github (or from
recent activity on the lists) to make the move as they feel appropriate.

In any case, the person creating the repository on github must have owner
authority in github.

I still have received no advice on how the repository should be filled out
(.gitignore, readme, license, ).

Tony

On 04/23/2017 11:11 AM, Samuel Cantero wrote:

 I'm agree with Walter.

 We should move activities repos from [1]git.sugarlabs.org to [2]github.org
 with the whole commit history. It would be nice to keep all repos with same
 format in name and inside one Github organization exclusively dedicated for
 activities.

 Regards,

 On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Tony Anderson <[3]tony_ander...@usa.net>
 wrote:

 Hi, Ignacio

 I am open to suggestions (accusations not accepted). I am a newbie in
 this and largely unqualified; however, I don't see a rush of more
 qualified volunteers to take this task on.

 Many, possibly a majority of these activities have not been touched
 since 2010. I would not like to wait until we get contact from
   

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[Dave Crossland]

On Apr 23, 2017 7:08 PM, "James Cameron"  wrote:

We cannot host repositories on GitHub that don't have a license.


That was true in the early days of github but it's no longer true. In fact
it's a big problem, because a lot of stuff is posted on github without a
libre license and requests to apply once often get ignored or worse.

See eg github.com/Monotype ;)
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Activities added to GithHub

[James Cameron]

Dissent.


1.

For the duplication by Tony from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugarlabs;

- for the commit history, we still have the original repository for
  some activities.

- for the source code, now we have two places for some activities; the
  original repository, and a copy with a history collapsed to release
  versions.  While this may be helpful for users, it isn't helpful for
  developers.

As I'm a developer, I'll continue to use the original repositories
rather than the duplicated repositories.

I don't understand why this duplication was done.

The problems in activities.sugarlabs.org are fixed by editing the
source code and configuration files, not a transition to GitHub.  ASLO
is on GitHub and is a relatively simple web application.  See
https://github.com/sugarlabs/aslo/issues for some technical analysis
of the issues.


2.

For the duplication by Ignacio from activities.sugarlabs.org to
github.com/sugar-activities, in addition to what others have said;

- it pollutes the search space of GitHub,

- it dilutes the /sugarlabs/ GitHub organisation.

Again, I don't understand why this duplication was done.


3.

Overall, I don't recall seeing any consultation on a transition from
ASLO to GitHub; no Wiki page, no sugar-devel@ posting, just a spray of
GitHub notifications.

The whole thing smacks of automaticity and unqualified work.  ;-)  But
I'm open to hearing what the plan is, in detail.  If it helps me, I'll
jump on board, but if it doesn't I'll avoid it.


4.

Repositories can be moved to GitHub with full commit history.  It's a
feature of GitHub that we have used well in the past.

.gitignore is documented in the Git manual.

README.md is Markdown source that GitHub presents on the default view
of a repository.  For an activity without one it could include parts
of the activity/activity.info file.

License must be clearly defined and compatible with GitHub's
requirements.  We cannot host repositories on GitHub that don't have a
license.


On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:25:49AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> Thanks to all for the valuable suggestions.
> 
> Your advice seems to me to check on each activity in ASLO to see if it has a
> repository on git.sugarlabs.org. Since there is no obvious way to know if the
> current repository in git.sugarlabs.org is consistent with the version(s) on
> ASLO.
> 
> Are you comfortable with making the most recent version on ASLO a build from
> git.sugarlabs.org?
> 
> Should I send an email to the developer on git if active on github (or from
> recent activity on the lists) to make the move as they feel appropriate.
> 
> In any case, the person creating the repository on github must have owner
> authority in github.
> 
> I still have received no advice on how the repository should be filled out
> (.gitignore, readme, license, ).
> 
> Tony
> 
> On 04/23/2017 11:11 AM, Samuel Cantero wrote:
> 
> I'm agree with Walter.
> 
> We should move activities repos from [1]git.sugarlabs.org to [2]github.org
> with the whole commit history. It would be nice to keep all repos with 
> same
> format in name and inside one Github organization exclusively dedicated 
> for
> activities.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Tony Anderson <[3]tony_ander...@usa.net>
> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Ignacio
> 
> I am open to suggestions (accusations not accepted). I am a newbie in
> this and largely unqualified; however, I don't see a rush of more
> qualified volunteers to take this task on.
> 
> Many, possibly a majority of these activities have not been touched
> since 2010. I would not like to wait until we get contact from
> contributors who have moved on to a day job.
> 
> If all of the ASLO activities can be moved as repositories to github/
> sugarlabs - nothing has been lost. Corrections can be made to those
> repositories to include the famous 'repeal and replace'. The immediate
> benefit is that the developer hub on ASLO can be discontinued
> simplifying an effort to make ALSO itself more stable and 
> maintainable.
> 
> In addition, github makes it easier for the community at large to make
> corrections or improvements to the activities knowing that they are
> working on the one and only official version.
> 
> In any case, a repository appears to give no credit to the creator -
> only to contributors. Contributions are, by definition, post the move
> of the repository to github.
> 
> I am looking for advice on how to relate [4]git.sugarlabs.org to the
> github repositories.
> 
> Tony
> 
> On 04/23/2017 10:23 AM, Ignacio Rodríguez wrote:
> 
> I think we should focus on contact the creators of the activities
> before moving them -- sugar-activities org basically contains all
> aslo activities and nothing else (which can be