[GRASS-PSC] git migration / going Zenodo

[Peter Löwe]

Hi Markus, PSC,

 

apologies for following up on this so late.

The grass-legacy structure in GitHub is fine, of course.

Regarding the options how to integrate with Zenodo, I believe we're on the right track. There is an alternative option by manual/Zebodo-API-based integration, but I don't believe this makes sense. All feedback from the Zenodo helpdesk on this has been included in the "future plans" section of the wiki page: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/GitMigration

 

best,

Peter

 

 



 
 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. April 2019 um 16:29 Uhr
Von: "Markus Neteler" 
An: "\"Peter Löwe\" (peter.lo...@gmx.de)" 
Cc: GRASS-PSC 
Betreff: Re: git migration: Zenodo and versioned DOI for GRASS releases



Hi Peter,
 
 


"Peter Löwe"  schrieb am Mi., 17. Apr. 2019, 12:15:

Hi Markus, hi PSC,

the reason why I believe we should consider the Zenodo option (for long term archiving and DOI-based scientific recognition/citation) before making the switch to GitHub is the DOI versioning capability of Zenodo (https://blog.zenodo.org/2017/05/30/doi-versioning-launched/). This is similar to the mechanism implented for the GRASS module manual pages, where references from outdated versions point to the current release of the module (and man page). The DOI-versioning mechanism in Zenodo additionally implements a version history as a hsitorical sequence of releases. This means that the DOI version for GRASS 4.2.1 predates GRASS 4.3, which predates GRASS5.x, etc. etc. and all also point to the latest release.



 

 

Yes: each release is a point in time.

 



The GRASS SVN contains the release branches dating back to GRASS 5. In addition there are tarballs from the GRASS 4.x era (-> what about GRASS 3.x or earlier ?).



 

Please check our work already done:

I have reconstructed the releases back to 3.2 including time stamps at file level.

 

 

https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy

 

Note that the URL will change to OSGeo organization soon.

 

 



Making all these releases available for scientific citation (and recognition) through one versioned DOI in the described "timely sequence" is a more complex task than what's covered in the how-to guides for GitHub-Zenodo-integration (https://genr.eu/wp/cite/).



 

We have all branches there, since 1987.

 

 



I've contacted the Zenodo helpdesk for advice how this should be approached and will report back ASAP.

It would be a pity (and waste of ressources) if we make the effort to create a GitHub repo for GRASS once and then having to redo it because of some pecularities of the DOI-versioning mechanism.



 

 

Still I don't see why we should redo it.

Does the new structure not address it?

Did you check it?

 

Best,

Markus





___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Vaclav Petras]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:40 PM Markus Neteler  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:58 PM Vaclav Petras 
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 4:02 PM Markus Neteler  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub
> >> https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub
> >
> > Looks great. Thanks!
> >
> > One thing it lacks are best practices for using Git. Git is not
> Subversion and we just can't use it as Subversion.
>
> Please suggest a text snippet to add there (or add directly).
>

Added.


> >> It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a
> >> continuous mirror on GitLab.com.
> >
> > How realistic is the continuous mirror? I know GitLab has migration
> tools, but does it have sync as well?
>
> https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html
> "
> Repository mirroring allows for mirroring of repositories to and from
> external sources. It can be used to mirror branches, tags, and commits
> between repositories.
> A repository mirror at GitLab will be updated automatically. You can
> also manually trigger an update at most once every 5 minutes.
> "
>
> ... looks fine.
>

The mirroring covers only the code, but not the issues which we are also
migrating. The migration does cover them, but the problem is the guarantee
of being able to do the migration when needed. A periodical backup from
GitHub would be probably fine.
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: Zenodo and versioned DOI for GRASS releases

[Markus Neteler]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Martin Landa  wrote:
> st 17. 4. 2019 v 16:29 odesílatel Markus Neteler  napsal:
> > Please check our work already done:
> > I have reconstructed the releases back to 3.2 including time stamps at file 
> > level.
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy
>
> note that this repo lack releases [0] (=git tags). This need to be
> fixed.

Good point.
Fixed.

> Compare with grass repo [1]. Ma
>
> [0] https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/releases
> [1] https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass/releases

Enjoy the "new" branches
https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/branches
and releases
https://github.com/grass-svn2git/grass-legacy/releases

cheers
Markus

-- 
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
https://grass.osgeo.org
https://courses.neteler.org/blog
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Michael Barton]

1+ since we have an exit strategy if GitHub becomes too commercial.

Michael

C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University

voice:  480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu















On Apr 7, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Markus Neteler 
mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>> wrote:

Hi PSC,

a months has passed since the publication of the draft

RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.osgeo.org_grass_wiki_RFC_6-5FMigrationGitHub=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=ZFdNItSY-vZfmG2phTQm2mCpnH0h8tQuydlwxNFLKdE=RMXSrcrPAxQCW4zlEAduHDzX8tPmxTYGs285jwEhBxI=

Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document.

Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on
with the SVN to git migration.

I would also suggest to postpone
- label details in the issue tracker (can be done later)
- trac wiki migration (can be done later)
to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck.

In a nutshell: RFC6 proposes to migrate to github under OSGeo
organization. It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a
continuous mirror on GitLab.com.

Best
Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=ZFdNItSY-vZfmG2phTQm2mCpnH0h8tQuydlwxNFLKdE=CQ94SbB5oRwtrvm3W9x-qHu5p2b9IioFzwszzqJj-FU=

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Peter Löwe]

Hi Markus, all,

> Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. April 2019 um 22:02 Uhr
> Von: "Markus Neteler" 
> An: "GRASS PSC list" 
> Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
>
> Hi PSC,
>
> a months has passed since the publication of the draft
>
> RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub
> https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub
>
> Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document.
>
> Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on
> with the SVN to git migration.
>

+ 1 (we should not forget about the Zenodo option)

> I would also suggest to postpone
> - label details in the issue tracker (can be done later)
> - trac wiki migration (can be done later)
> to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck.

+ 1
> In a nutshell: RFC6 proposes to migrate to github under OSGeo
> organization. It also proposes an exit strategy incl. to implement a
> continuous mirror on GitLab.com.

+1

best
peter
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Moritz Lennert]

On 7/04/19 22:02, Markus Neteler wrote:

Hi PSC,

a months has passed since the publication of the draft

RFC 6: Migration from SVN to GitHub
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub

Since then comments have been received and integrated into the document.

Let me suggest to come to a vote in the next days in order to move on
with the SVN to git migration.


+1



I would also suggest to postpone
- label details in the issue tracker (can be done later)
- trac wiki migration (can be done later)
to a date after the git migration has been done, otherwise we remain stuck.


+1

Moritz
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[GRASS-PSC] git migration: Zenodo optionS

[Peter Löwe]

Hi Markus, hi list,

I was raising the Zenodo-topic, since this might strategically affect how we 
need to structure the GRASS repository / repositories on GitHub, so we can make 
the most out of Zenodo for scientific citation later.

Zenodo currenlty mints for EACH SINGLE GitHub-project which is checked in 
EXACTLY ONE persistent identifier ("unbreakable Web-link"), a Digital Object 
Identifier (DOI). DOI have become crucial for scientific citation and 
indirectly also for the careers of early career scientists (who need lots a 
citations to eventually get tenure/rich)

Whenever there's a new release of the project repo on GitHub, the corresponding 
repo- instance in Zenodo is updated accordingly and the DOI is also updated to 
a new version (note: it's the same DOI, NOT a new/different DOI). This compares 
to the update note on GRASS man pages ("Note: A new GRASS GIS stable version 
has been released: GRASS GIS 7.6, available here. Updated manual page: here").

In this manner we're dealing with two different flavours of DOI-based 
reference: 1.) The "overall" DOI for the archived (GRASS-)software repo and 2.) 
the continuously increased version/release numbers (e.g. citing "GRASS GIS" 
versus a particular release "GRASS 4.2.1"; "GRASS 5.3", "GRASS 7.4", etc.). 

So from the Zenodo/DOI perspective need to consider (at least) two options for 
using GitHub:

a) We could _SPLIT_ the overall GRASS repo and create individual GitHub repos 
for each currently existing GRASS release, so each gets its own distinct DOI 
(this would allow for backports to be considered new (DOI)versions of the 
particular GRASS releases).

b) We keep __ONE__ GRASS project GUI, and get __ONE__ DOI for the greater GRASS 
project wich has LOTS of versions. Suggestion: We could start filling the repo 
(already linked with Zenodo) consecutively, beginning with the oldest archived 
GRASS releases, minting a DOI-version for each one. In this manner, each old 
GRASS release will receive it's own  distinct __version__ of the overall DOI. 
Things could get messy lateron, when backports to previous releases are made, 
which will also cause DOI version updates, but AFAIK there's no way yet to sort 
through all DOI versions (just) for a specific GRASS release.

We also should consider that Zenodo currently can't handle fine-grained DOI, to 
cite a particular GRASS module within a certain GRASS release. There's still a 
lot of development going on both in the DOI infrastructure and Zenodo, so this 
might come as a later step.

Another interesting aspect is the issue of ownership and due credit: Both the 
GRASS repo(s) on GitHub and the corresponding Zendo-archive(s) must have 
owners. This should be IMHO the "GRASS Development Team". Therefore the 
GRASS-related DOI(s) will be attributed to the GRASS Developer Team. We should 
think about a way, to link the ORCIDs of team members ("persitent identifiers 
for individual persons" https://orcid.org) to the GRASS DOI(s). This is not 
trivial (but innovative), but can be tackled later.  

best,
Peter




> Gesendet: Montag, 01. April 2019 um 11:13 Uhr
> Von: "Markus Neteler" 
> An: "Peter Löwe" 
> Cc: GRASS-PSC 
> Betreff: Re: git migration: the Zenodo option
>
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:35 AM "Peter Löwe"  wrote:
> >
> > Hello PSC,
> >
> > before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider 
> > beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the Zenodo archive in 
> > the future, so we can set up things in a way that this option can be used 
> > (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term 
> > scientific archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo), operated and 
> > maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.
> > Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: 
> > https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
> >
> > IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long 
> > term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.
> 
> A very good idea.
> Just curious: why is this needed to be done (?) *before* migrating to
> GitHub? I'd rather get that done first, then put cool stuff on top.
> 
> Best
> Markus
>
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

st 27. 3. 2019 v 14:30 odesílatel Anna Petrášová  napsal:
>>> I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in 
>>> the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe 
>>> that we should keep
>>> raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are 
>>> useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.

right, modules are too generic.

* raster (everything raster related -> 2d, 3d, imagery)
* vector (everything vector related -> 2d, 3d)
* temporal

would be enough?

> I agree, although with raster, vector etc it's not quite clear if it should 
> refer to modules or libraries or both. Also don't forget labels work 
> differently than trac categories.
>
> I would also add 'Mac specific', (I don't think we need also Linux specific) 
> and maybe just shorten it to 'MacOS' and 'Windows'.

Sound reasonable.

> Also I would add a label 'beginner'.

Why not :-) Ma

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: the Zenodo option

[Michael Barton]

I agree.

C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University

voice:  480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu















On Apr 1, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Peter Löwe 
mailto:peter.lo...@gmx.de>> wrote:

Hello PSC,

before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider beforehand 
how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the Zenodo archive in the future, so 
we can set up things in a way that this option can be used (setting up of 
credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term scientific archive 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Zenodo=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=eLqy-us8Ndl3Ib-jVCqg6HnDVX5UplIhMBJi_ikKpFU=>),
 operated and maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.
Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: 
https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__guides.github.com_activities_citable-2Dcode_=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=uxwdmfyG2MUsWuGFvLkBgK5kU6InGQpB8174EOILG3Q=>

IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long term 
preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.

best,
peter


mailto:peter.lo...@gmx.de>>


Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. März 2019 um 12:28 Uhr
Von: "Markus Neteler" mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>>
An: GRASS-PSC mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org>>
Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi all,

where do we stand here at time?

Markus

___ grass-psc mailing list 
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org> 
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwMBaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=-r3dUKskTlpotQnaqfAnh9m12i-F02d_oLOHKaM-wfk=>
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc=DwIGaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw=-r3dUKskTlpotQnaqfAnh9m12i-F02d_oLOHKaM-wfk=

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[GRASS-PSC] git migration: the Zenodo option

[Peter Löwe]

Hello PSC,

 

before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the Zenodo archive in the future, so we can set up things in a way that this option can be used (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term scientific archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo), operated and maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.

Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/

 

IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.

 

best,

peter

 

 



 
 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. März 2019 um 12:28 Uhr
Von: "Markus Neteler" 
An: GRASS-PSC 
Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration


Hi all,
 

where do we stand here at time?
 


Markus

 


___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc



___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Anna Petrášová]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:48 AM Margherita Di Leo 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues
>> in the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still
>> believe that we should keep
>> raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are
>> useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.
>>
>
I agree, although with raster, vector etc it's not quite clear if it should
refer to modules or libraries or both. Also don't forget labels work
differently than trac categories.

I would also add 'Mac specific', (I don't think we need also Linux
specific) and maybe just shorten it to 'MacOS' and 'Windows'.

Also I would add a label 'beginner'.

Anna


> I tend to agree with Vero.
> Cheers,
>
>>
>> my 0.2 cents
>> Vero
>>
>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2019-March/091584.html
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Margherita Di Leo
> ___
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Margherita Di Leo]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in
> the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe
> that we should keep
> raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are
> useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.
>

I tend to agree with Vero.
Cheers,

>
> my 0.2 cents
> Vero
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2019-March/091584.html
>
>
>
-- 
Margherita Di Leo
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Markus Neteler]

Hi all,

where do we stand here at time?

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[GRASS-PSC] git migration: software citation 101

[Peter Löwe]

Hi PSC,

to follow up on the software citation topic, here's a short tutorial which 
describes how guthub and Zenodo can be linked:
https://genr.eu/wp/cite/

IMHO it would make a lot of sense to provide proper scientific citation for 
GRASS releases 4.x - 6.x. Backports to these releasess will still be feasible.

best
peter





> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. März 2019 um 17:55 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Löwe" 
> An: "GRASS PSC list" 
> Betreff: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: Opportunity for DOI citation
>
> Dear PSC,
> 
> please be aware that IF we decide to migrate to gitHub, this would provide an 
> opportunity to introduce digital object identifiers (DOI) for scientific 
> citation on the level of individual GRASS releases (and possibly individual 
> add-on modules) if we interface with the Zenodo digital archive (which is a 
> non-propietary science infrastructure service operated be the EU). More info 
> here: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
> 
> 
> best,
> Peter
> 
> ___
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Helmut Kudrnovsky]

Markus Neteler wrote
> PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with
> developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of
> work... thanks Martin!!

big kudos to Martin!




-
best regards
Helmut
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GRASS-PSC-f4051248.html
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Markus Neteler]

Hi Luí­s,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Luí­s Moreira de Sousa
 wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which 
> they would like GRASS migrate to. Personally, I would answer differently to 
> each of these questions. I have an account on GitHub, but I no longer use it 
> for personal projects and am trying to move collaborative projects away.
>
> I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially 
> considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform.

We spent weeks on it over the last 15 months :-)
Just not in this list which is low traffic anyway but during the last
code sprints and in offlist emails among interested folks.

> In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome!

Yes: let's start and migrate, time to move on.
And see also my other email from a few minutes ago about exit strategy
in case it is needed.

Best
Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Markus Neteler]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:41 AM Stefan Blumentrath
 wrote:
> Two minor non-PSC comment on RFC 6, which generally looks very good to me:
>
> 1) One thing I probably would word a bit differently, is the comment on the 
> addon repository, that currently says:
> " repository grass-addons
> repository for addons (this will become less relevant as people tend to keep 
> their addons in own repositories)"
> Here I would say that esp because people are keeping addons in private 
> repositories, it is even more important to simplify contribution to AddOns 
> (and I hope the move to git would help). Because I consider it as highly 
> valuable to have available addons gathered in one place (see amongst others: 
> https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3583).

Yes: we should support both and be rather inviting towards our own
addon repo (read: "mostly well maintained").
It is just a matter of fact that folks will keep code in their own
repos but an addon manager from the grass-dev side you take care that
relevant contributions are merged into our central addons repo as
before.

> 2) Even being among those who voted for gitlab, I have to admit (as hinted 
> earlier) that I would nevertheless come to the same conclusion that github 
> sould be the destination/target (simply for pragmatical reasons). Also, many 
> participants asked for OSGeo projects sticking together. And most of them are 
> on github.

In my company we use successfully a self-deployed gitlab instance. Yet
we want to have more contributors and many are on github... (so far).

> That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away 
> from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as 
> possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to 
> move. Just to acknowledge that,
>  a) the decision for github as a target is mainly a pragmatical one (as it is 
> not Free and Open) and following the current majority vote

yes.

>  b) even OSGeo projects that currently are on GitHub, like QGIS, have an eye 
> on Gitlab [2] based on a feature analysis [see 1]

also yes.

>  c) with 43 participants voting for GitHub, 24 voting for gitlab (pluss 5 
> voting for gitlab in OSGeo infrastructure) there is still (already?) a 
> significant number of people with different preferences
> But again, lets move to git(hub) and try to stay as flexible as possible...

For now, I have added a new subsection:
   https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub#Exitstrategy
which essentially suggests to operate a real time mirror on gitlab.com.

Best
Markus

PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with
developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of
work... thanks Martin!!

> Cheers
> Stefan
>
> 1: https://about.gitlab.com/devops-tools/github-vs-gitlab.html
> 2: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[GRASS-PSC] git migration: Opportunity for DOI citation

[Peter Löwe]

Dear PSC,

please be aware that IF we decide to migrate to gitHub, this would provide an 
opportunity to introduce digital object identifiers (DOI) for scientific 
citation on the level of individual GRASS releases (and possibly individual 
add-on modules) if we interface with the Zenodo digital archive (which is a 
non-propietary science infrastructure service operated be the EU). More info 
here: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/


best,
Peter

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

st 6. 3. 2019 v 14:42 odesílatel Luí­s Moreira de Sousa
 napsal:
> the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which 
> they would like GRASS migrate to.

see question: "What would be your preferred git platform?"

> Personally, I would answer differently to each of these questions. I have an 
> account on GitHub, but I no longer use it for personal projects and am trying 
> to move collaborative projects away.

I understand your points. I am the last who is happy with migrating
GRASS source code (issues) to GitHub. On the other hand most of core
OSGeo projects are on GitHub [1] including QGIS, or, well, PyWPS ;-)

> I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially 
> considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform.

Well, in the case that own OSGeo git platform would be stable and
solid, enough manpower to maintain than most of OSGeo projects would
be there. GDAL recently migrated to GitHub, etc. There are some clear
pragmatic points why to join Github. At least to join other projects
like GDAL and Proj.4 which are crucial for GRASS GIS.

> In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome!

Cool :-)

Ma

[1] https://github.com/osgeo

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Nikos Alexandris]

Hi all, a quick voice as non-core dev,

1. there should be one official GRASS GIS Add-Ons repository

2. there should be a set of minimal requirements to accept requests to
include add-ons in the official repository

3. `g.extension` deserves some love and improvements and it should issue
a Warning like "Note, you are installing an add-on from an unofficial
source" when using a repository other than the official one

4. there should be some minimal testing for an add-on, i.e.: does it
build after a(ny) commit?, does it work after a(ny) commit? and ideally
a set of unit tests too.

5. besides git, neither git-hub, nor git-lab should be ever considered
permanent

That said, import/export operations for repositories are by now quite
good and I guess they will improve further

Cheers, Nikos
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

st 6. 3. 2019 v 11:41 odesílatel Stefan Blumentrath
 napsal:
> That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away 
> from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as 
> possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to 
> move. Just to acknowledge that,

I agree. In the case that we will use Github issue (+wiki) we should
do regular backup download through their API.

Ma

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Markus Neteler]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:24 PM Martin Landa  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
> git, see also related survey
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.
>
> From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
> the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.

I come to the same conclusions.
Importantly, once migrated we can run a mirror in Gitlab.

> I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
> issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.
>
> See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20

I have drafted a document:

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub

Please review and comment.

Markus

-- 
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
https://grass.osgeo.org
https://courses.neteler.org/blog
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[GRASS-PSC] git migration

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
git, see also related survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.

From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.

I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.

See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20

Martin

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc