On 11/17/2010 09:07 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Stefan Behnel<stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 17.11.2010 11:39:
On 11/17/2010 11:33 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 11/17/2010 09:59 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
So, I've been thinking about this, and one of the reasons we're using
the current setup is that it requires very little administration from
me, as I am essentially leaching of the sagemath.org infrastructure.
Moving things to boxen would be a bit more administration on our part,
but still not too bad, and I know William is a happy enough Cython
user to be fine with continuing to host us :). However, I'm wondering
if this would be a ripe occasion to making the leap to something like
http://code.google.com. Currently, our infrastructure consists of
1. The web site
2. Trac
3. Wiki
4. Repositories
5. Buildbot
6. Mailing lists
Currently we're hosting 1-5, and 6 is being hosted by codespeak.net
(for cython-dev) and google (for cython-users). I think it may be
worth considering moving 2-4 elsewhere, as there is little loss and
they are the higher-maintenance (from an administrative point of view)
items, and features such as code review tools would be nice to have as
well.
I see the serious advantage of simplifying the access to bug tracker, wiki,
etc. for new users.
And for us old-timers too :)
However, regarding the "little loss", does anyone have experience in
migrating trac tickets to a different tracker? There's a lot of information
in the tracker that I don't want to loose, and I wouldn't like to look at
two trackers to figure out if a bug has been reported.
+1, this was one of my criteria too (hence the link to
http://www.dataliberation.org/google/code-project-hosting , which I
consider a critical part being open). However, the unfortunate
geographic limitations seem to be a blocker. It looks like GitHub and
BitBucket have APIs for importing/exporting issues as well, so we'd
certainly migrate all our data. The wikis for all are stored in a DVCS
repository, which is nice. Wiki history isn't as important, but I'd
see if it wasn't too hard to scrape/grab.
Forgetting about the git aspect for a moment, I'm strongly in favor of a
DVCS-centered site. That is, +1 to bitbucket, github, gitorious, ++, and
-1 to SourceForge, Google Code, etc.
For sure. If Google Code didn't support the DVCS "click to clone"
model I wouldn't have considered it.
Ah ok, shows my ignorance.
I guess it's bitbucket then? Switching the VCS just because of a project
hosting site sounds like more trouble than I'm currently after.
The biggest drawback of bitbucket is the lack of integrated code
review--if we're moving projects we might as well move to something
that's a step up in this area. I would be happy switching to Git to
use GitHub--my primary issue with it compared to mercurial is the
steep(er) learning curve, but this is less of an issue for a rather
technical project like ours.
To quote Kurt: "The deciding factor, ultimately, was the hg-git
mercurial plugin <http://hg-git.github.com/>, which allows someone to
use a mercurial client with a git repository,/ with improved branch
functionality/."
Using a git repo allows people to use either hg or git as their
front-end, whichever they prefer. With a mercurial repo you can't
currently use git transparently as the front-end (although, if Cython
doesn't switch, I'll have to find a non-transparent way of working in
git and move patches to hg -- after a couple of weeks there's no going
back.)
http://fortrancython.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/fwrap-has-moved-to-github/
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
Cython-dev@codespeak.net
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
