github has quotas, and lacks a good way to group plugins by independent authors including their wikis and tickets. We also can't guarantee their polcies so hub is a backup to ensure our codebase, wiki and tickets.
As others have pointed out there's no reason to not sync your code to both. I just like the idea of hub holding collectively all the bugs for all plugins and the main applications in one place with an osgeo login that enables anyone in the community to file bugs against any part. In some ways we were trying to discourage the trend that everyone had their own plugin server (the goal of the plugin site), the source code was not clearly available (other than releases) and no one knew where to file bugs. Hopefully as we start to integrate the plugins site with hub the feature set will prove useful when communicating not only with other developers but users, especially power users. To me it's the users and power users that benefit the most from us hosting our own infrastructure and trying to make it more user friendly than github which is clearly only for coders in the know. Thanks, Alex On 12/16/2011 02:58 AM, Pirmin Kalberer wrote: > Hi Richard, > > There was never an in-depth discussion about the role of hub.qgis.org vs > github.com. > Since I was involved in the setup of both platforms, here my personal view: > > We want to have direct links between tickets and changesets for QGIS. > Therefore we need the git repository viewer on hub.qgis.org. But for me, > gitosis on hub.qgis.org is only a backup solution to keep a certain > independency from github.com. Due to the nature of a distributed VCS, the > risk > of this dependency is low and we won't be able to compete with github.com in > terms of features. So I suggest people to publish their (plugin) code on > github. And If they don't want that, they have the possibility to use the > OSGEO hosted git repo on hub.qgis.org (with less functionality). > > Regards > Pirmin > > > Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2011, um 09.48:17 schrieb Richard Duivenvoorde: >> Hi Devs, >> >> doing some plugins, and working both with plugins from >> hub.qgis.org/projects/.../repository (my own) and plugins living at >> github (wktplugin from Allesandro), it appears to me that github seems >> to work more transparant for me... >> >> Eg at github after a couple of days you could see that people forked >> Allesandro's plugin and you could even see what they were doing with it >> (by going to the forkers github repo). I could even contact those people >> to ask to do a pull request etc etc. >> >> I think, this cannot be done at our own hub.qgis.org-repo? >> Or am I missing something in this? >> >> I think it is really helpfull to see what other people are adding/doing >> with a plugin. And it hopefully also minimizes the private >> branching/forking of plugins. >> >> I read something about the old jquery plugins site, which broke down, >> and now there is a message at >> http://blog.jquery.com/2011/12/08/what-is-happening-to-the-jquery-plugins-s >> ite/ that says: "we’ve started converting our plans into action, building >> out an infrastructure that’s backed by GitHub". >> >> Isn't that an ideal situation for QGIS plugin future to? >> >> I am NOT wanting to throw away the infrastructure we have now! It's just >> that I like the jquery plugin idea... >> >> Regards, >> >> Richard Duivenvoorde >> >> ps as a temporary solution I think to fork (is forking actually adding a >> new remote?) my repo's to github too... >> >> ps2 (sorry for too much words on the list from my side.... I will go in >> stealth mode .... now) >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
