Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Unless you can get over the idea of a centralized repository, GIT is an over curve, some would say counter intuitive. Please look into subtrees, branches, tags. Did not have time to look at everyone's post, but I am pretty sure everyone will be enthused about the idea. I would say, if it's not broken, why pull your hair? PS We use git for our newly created projects. Never dared migration of such crucial info. Kind Regards, Ninus. On 3/1/13, James Cloos wrote: >> "BI" == Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes: > > BI> So, after all everything reduces to GH versus SF > > It does not need to be an either-or. You can keep using SF for the > mailing lists (you should do that no matter what) and anything else > you like better. > > You can keep copies of the git repo on both. Many projects use two > or more hosting services like that; each is a backup to the other. > > In short, the best of both worlds. > > -JimC > -- > James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 > > ___ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
> "BI" == Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes: BI> So, after all everything reduces to GH versus SF It does not need to be an either-or. You can keep using SF for the mailing lists (you should do that no matter what) and anything else you like better. You can keep copies of the git repo on both. Many projects use two or more hosting services like that; each is a backup to the other. In short, the best of both worlds. -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Bogdan, Git has pull requests as a feature, but its hard to manage without some ecosystem like GH as saul mentioned. Here is a good response that details the differences between what we consider a GH pull request and a standard git pull request. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6235379/how-to-send-pull-request-on-git What makes GH great, is the collaboration between authors and the integration of these "pull requests" from individual repos to the master. From there, the team can look at the pull requests and easily merge whats clean and useful. Regards, --Rudy Dynamic Packet Toll-Free: 888.929.VOIP ( 8647 ) On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > Hi, > > On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Trying to summaries the status. >> >> It is doable to move NEWS, Donations, file downloads and forums on >> opensips.org -> this will make GITHUB is an alternative to SF, hosting code >> repo and tracker. >> >> So, after all everything reduces to GH versus SF, or what we have to gain >> from GH and what to loose from SF. IMO, GH is more friendly on GIT usage, >> but with SF we will loose "history" as bugs, contributors accounts, and a >> more complex project platform. >> > > IMHO it's more related to the ecosystem. Because GH makes it easy to > contribute people seem to do it more often, the barrier for newcomers to > contribute code is lowered, the way I see it. > >> So, maybe a stupid question : the "pull request" is something specific to >> GIT (can be done on any GIT repo) or something specific to GITHUB only ? >> > > AFAIK, SF doesn't have a mechanism for dealing with contributions which is as > powerful as GH pull requests. With pull requests basically a contributor (or > even yourself if you want a peer review!) will host the code in a fork and > anyone can make inline comments on the diff. Then the contributor can > overwrite those commits (in his fork) until everything looks nice. Then, a > committer can merge the patch in, but the authorship is preserved so the > patch author gets a nice attribution in the form of being the commit author. > > Those are my 2 cents, > > -- > Saúl Ibarra Corretgé > AG Projects > > > > > ___ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi, On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > Hi, > > Trying to summaries the status. > > It is doable to move NEWS, Donations, file downloads and forums on > opensips.org -> this will make GITHUB is an alternative to SF, hosting code > repo and tracker. > > So, after all everything reduces to GH versus SF, or what we have to gain > from GH and what to loose from SF. IMO, GH is more friendly on GIT usage, but > with SF we will loose "history" as bugs, contributors accounts, and a more > complex project platform. > IMHO it's more related to the ecosystem. Because GH makes it easy to contribute people seem to do it more often, the barrier for newcomers to contribute code is lowered, the way I see it. > So, maybe a stupid question : the "pull request" is something specific to GIT > (can be done on any GIT repo) or something specific to GITHUB only ? > AFAIK, SF doesn't have a mechanism for dealing with contributions which is as powerful as GH pull requests. With pull requests basically a contributor (or even yourself if you want a peer review!) will host the code in a fork and anyone can make inline comments on the diff. Then the contributor can overwrite those commits (in his fork) until everything looks nice. Then, a committer can merge the patch in, but the authorship is preserved so the patch author gets a nice attribution in the form of being the commit author. Those are my 2 cents, -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi, Trying to summaries the status. It is doable to move NEWS, Donations, file downloads and forums on opensips.org -> this will make GITHUB is an alternative to SF, hosting code repo and tracker. So, after all everything reduces to GH versus SF, or what we have to gain from GH and what to loose from SF. IMO, GH is more friendly on GIT usage, but with SF we will loose "history" as bugs, contributors accounts, and a more complex project platform. So, maybe a stupid question : the "pull request" is something specific to GIT (can be done on any GIT repo) or something specific to GITHUB only ? Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 02/20/2013 12:35 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:01 +0100 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: - file download system Sort of. You can't upload files, but it will generate tar files for each tag. So it is not very suitable for real releases. There is no way to include generated files that should not go to the repository (like the 'configure' script) and getting the filenames right and download URL nice (important for distribution packagers) is tricky. They could be uploaded to s3 or host them on opensips.org I guess. - news system Nope. There is a wiki and mechanism to host own static web pages. May be enough for simple news and documentation. Looks likt there are 3 things missing: - News: IMHO that belongs to the project website, not the place where the code is hosted, so this would not be a problem. I don't think an open software maintainer should need to worry about maintaining a website with news/forums. Well, a proper open source project should have a proper website, not just a git or svn repository. Since OpenSIPS already has a website I think that's the appropriate place for news and announcements. I'd remove forums. -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:01 +0100 > Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: >>>- file download system >> >> Sort of. You can't upload files, but it will generate tar files for >> each tag. > > So it is not very suitable for real releases. There is no way to include > generated files that should not go to the repository (like the > 'configure' script) and getting the filenames right and download URL > nice (important for distribution packagers) is tricky. > They could be uploaded to s3 or host them on opensips.org I guess. >>> - news system >> >> Nope. > > There is a wiki and mechanism to host own static web pages. May be > enough for simple news and documentation. > >> Looks likt there are 3 things missing: >> >> - News: IMHO that belongs to the project website, not the place where >> the code is hosted, so this would not be a problem. > > I don't think an open software maintainer should need to worry about > maintaining a website with news/forums. > Well, a proper open source project should have a proper website, not just a git or svn repository. Since OpenSIPS already has a website I think that's the appropriate place for news and announcements. I'd remove forums. -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:01 +0100 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > > - file download system > > Sort of. You can't upload files, but it will generate tar files for > each tag. So it is not very suitable for real releases. There is no way to include generated files that should not go to the repository (like the 'configure' script) and getting the filenames right and download URL nice (important for distribution packagers) is tricky. > > - news system > > Nope. There is a wiki and mechanism to host own static web pages. May be enough for simple news and documentation. > Looks likt there are 3 things missing: > > - News: IMHO that belongs to the project website, not the place where > the code is hosted, so this would not be a problem. I don't think an open software maintainer should need to worry about maintaining a website with news/forums. Greets, Jacek ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
> > Currently, what we use from SF : > - code repository It's there. > - file download system Sort of. You can't upload files, but it will generate tar files for each tag. > - trackers (bugs, patches, features) It's there. > - news system Nope. > - donation system Nope. > - forums > Nope. > could all these be replaced kept while moving to GH ? I mean is GH a platform > for complete hosting of projects ? > Looks likt there are 3 things missing: - News: IMHO that belongs to the project website, not the place where the code is hosted, so this would not be a problem. - Donation system: does SF use paypal or other service internally? GH allows for markup README files, so the readme would be changed to RST or MD format and an image with "Donate" can be added. This should also be on the project website (if it's not there already). - Forums: Does anyone use those instead of mailing lists in 2013? ;-) -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
On 02/19/2013 02:36 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: When comes to SF versus GITHUB - the main problem from my perspective is that SF overs a unified (one account) for tracker, forums, downloads, code repo.If we move code repo to GITHUB, we will force the developer to use 2 accounts (on SF for tracker, forum , etc, and one on GITHUB for GIT only).. I guess my original suggestion was not clear then :-) I was suggesting to completely move from SF. Just add a pointer to GH. For manageability reasons I would prefer to have a place hosting everything. Agreed. What options I see: 1) move everything (tracker + GIT and the rest ?) on GITHUB What would the rest be? 2) keep SF as primary GIT repo and GITHUB can be a secondary. Developers can use the SF accounts for everything and use GITHUB as an interface to the community (changes, pull requests, etc).. The problem I see here is that there would be a split so it could potentially be confusing. When a user sends a pull request, and issue is automatically created, so there would be two places for issues :-S Having GitHub not as the primary repo is not so nice because pull requests can't be disabled, so people could think that that is the place to contribute code :-S So, I think the two choices become: - Move everything to GH and have a read-only mirror somewhere (SF, BitBucket, self hosted, ...) - Stick to SF Personally I'd go for GitHub. In case there is anything I can do to help, whatever the choice is, don't hesitate to ask :-) Currently, what we use from SF : - code repository - file download system - trackers (bugs, patches, features) - news system - donation system - forums could all these be replaced kept while moving to GH ? I mean is GH a platform for complete hosting of projects ? Regards, Bogdan ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
> > When comes to SF versus GITHUB - the main problem from my perspective is that > SF overs a unified (one account) for tracker, forums, downloads, code > repo.If we move code repo to GITHUB, we will force the developer to use 2 > accounts (on SF for tracker, forum , etc, and one on GITHUB for GIT only).. > I guess my original suggestion was not clear then :-) I was suggesting to completely move from SF. Just add a pointer to GH. > For manageability reasons I would prefer to have a place hosting everything. > Agreed. > What options I see: > > 1) move everything (tracker + GIT and the rest ?) on GITHUB > What would the rest be? > 2) keep SF as primary GIT repo and GITHUB can be a secondary. Developers can > use the SF accounts for everything and use GITHUB as an interface to the > community (changes, pull requests, etc).. > The problem I see here is that there would be a split so it could potentially be confusing. When a user sends a pull request, and issue is automatically created, so there would be two places for issues :-S Having GitHub not as the primary repo is not so nice because pull requests can't be disabled, so people could think that that is the place to contribute code :-S So, I think the two choices become: - Move everything to GH and have a read-only mirror somewhere (SF, BitBucket, self hosted, ...) - Stick to SF Personally I'd go for GitHub. In case there is anything I can do to help, whatever the choice is, don't hesitate to ask :-) Regards, -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi Peter, On 02/18/2013 06:52 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2013/2/18 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé: What things need to be sorted out when moving to GIT: First question: would it be a self-hosted Git repository or the GitHub service? "Why can't we have both?" I personally don't see any issues here - It's possible to setup a "primary" repo at SF and "secondary" at GitHub. To be honest I'd prefer GitHub. Also I'd like to propose a switch to a new issue tracker at SF.net. Just compare that one we have to use now with the newest one: * http://sourceforge.net/p/sipp/bugs/ * http://sourceforge.net/p/curl/bugs/ SF anyhow forces us to do an upgrade (for the platform they are using) - see https://sourceforge.net/p/upgrade?search=opensips -, so we could check how the new tracker looks like and what other new options they have for it. Regards, Bogdan ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi Saul, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 02/18/2013 06:20 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: What things need to be sorted out when moving to GIT: First question: would it be a self-hosted Git repository or the GitHub service? 1) for backward compatibility, I would suggest having a Read-Only SVN, so people will be able to update their current SVN checkouts. Does any of you have experience in mirroring (GIT to SVN only) data ? If GitHub is chosen it already provides this, so there is nothing to be done: https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion 2) about the hooks in GIT - we have now the scripts for sending email on each SVN commits - some help in this matter will be highly appreciated. I don't know myself, but shouldn't be too hard to do. 3) we are heavily using the SVN keywords (%id%, etc) - is there a way to keep something similar in GIT ? Ditto. Also, we should keep the svn authors mapped to git authors where possible. I will appreciate any help from any GIT "expert" around here, just to be sure we get the things in the right way from the beginning :). Not a git super expert, but I have maintained a unofficial OpenSIPS repo for a while: https://github.com/saghul/OpenSIPS Since I'm here, let me elaborate on why I think moving to GitHub is a good idea: - Pull requests. That's it. Pull requests are the perfect way to collaborate with the project. Only people who actively contribute need commit rights, the rest can send a pull request with their changes just fine. Inline commenting is awesome, it's a very good way to iterate on a bugfix without sending diffs left and right, making code reviews very simple. GitHub also has an issue tracker, so existing issues can be migrated there. This would also help remove all sorts of old issues that have piled up over time ;-) When comes to SF versus GITHUB - the main problem from my perspective is that SF overs a unified (one account) for tracker, forums, downloads, code repo.If we move code repo to GITHUB, we will force the developer to use 2 accounts (on SF for tracker, forum , etc, and one on GITHUB for GIT only).. For manageability reasons I would prefer to have a place hosting everything. What options I see: 1) move everything (tracker + GIT and the rest ?) on GITHUB 2) keep SF as primary GIT repo and GITHUB can be a secondary. Developers can use the SF accounts for everything and use GITHUB as an interface to the community (changes, pull requests, etc).. If I'm talking BS, please correct me :D. Regards, Bogdan ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
2013/2/18 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé : >> What things need to be sorted out when moving to GIT: >> > > First question: would it be a self-hosted Git repository or the GitHub > service? "Why can't we have both?" I personally don't see any issues here - It's possible to setup a "primary" repo at SF and "secondary" at GitHub. To be honest I'd prefer GitHub. Also I'd like to propose a switch to a new issue tracker at SF.net. Just compare that one we have to use now with the newest one: * http://sourceforge.net/p/sipp/bugs/ * http://sourceforge.net/p/curl/bugs/ -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi Bogdan, On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to get some suggestions and help on the matter of migrating the > code repository from SVN to GIT - the fact that such migration will bring > value is for sure :) > I'm glad to see this happening. Count me in for helping as much as I can. > What things need to be sorted out when moving to GIT: > First question: would it be a self-hosted Git repository or the GitHub service? > > 1) for backward compatibility, I would suggest having a Read-Only SVN, so > people will be able to update their current SVN checkouts. > Does any of you have experience in mirroring (GIT to SVN only) data ? > If GitHub is chosen it already provides this, so there is nothing to be done: https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion > > 2) about the hooks in GIT - we have now the scripts for sending email on each > SVN commits - some help in this matter will be highly appreciated. > I don't know myself, but shouldn't be too hard to do. > > 3) we are heavily using the SVN keywords (%id%, etc) - is there a way to keep > something similar in GIT ? > Ditto. Also, we should keep the svn authors mapped to git authors where possible. > > I will appreciate any help from any GIT "expert" around here, just to be sure > we get the things in the right way from the beginning :). > Not a git super expert, but I have maintained a unofficial OpenSIPS repo for a while: https://github.com/saghul/OpenSIPS Since I'm here, let me elaborate on why I think moving to GitHub is a good idea: - Pull requests. That's it. Pull requests are the perfect way to collaborate with the project. Only people who actively contribute need commit rights, the rest can send a pull request with their changes just fine. Inline commenting is awesome, it's a very good way to iterate on a bugfix without sending diffs left and right, making code reviews very simple. GitHub also has an issue tracker, so existing issues can be migrated there. This would also help remove all sorts of old issues that have piled up over time ;-) Regards, -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
2013/2/18 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu : > Hi all, > > I would like to get some suggestions and help on the matter of migrating the > code repository from SVN to GIT - the fact that such migration will bring > value is for sure :) YES! YES! YES! -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] [RFC] migration to GIT
Hi all, I would like to get some suggestions and help on the matter of migrating the code repository from SVN to GIT - the fact that such migration will bring value is for sure :) What things need to be sorted out when moving to GIT: 1) for backward compatibility, I would suggest having a Read-Only SVN, so people will be able to update their current SVN checkouts. Does any of you have experience in mirroring (GIT to SVN only) data ? 2) about the hooks in GIT - we have now the scripts for sending email on each SVN commits - some help in this matter will be highly appreciated. 3) we are heavily using the SVN keywords (%id%, etc) - is there a way to keep something similar in GIT ? I will appreciate any help from any GIT "expert" around here, just to be sure we get the things in the right way from the beginning :). Best regards, -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
