On Wednesday, November 2, 2011 6:26:22 PM UTC+3, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>
>
> Now that we have 2.1 out of the door (thanks all for your hard work!) I 
> think we could discuss an issue I've been thinking for quite some time: 
> a move to Github. (It's not possible to move to Bitbucket, because its 
> Issues API issues is too limited and won't let us import our issues)
>
Considering GitHub issue tracker:
1. I don't like issue tracker from GitHub either
2. BB has an API for creating issues, so it's not true that it won't let 
http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/BITBUCKET/Issues
3. You need to find a way to auto-fill issue field when reporting them from 
Spyder menu like it currently works for Google Code

If you start with features of Google Code that are better than GitHub and 
BitBucket, you will have a full picture of the trade-offs. I can say from 
my experience that premature move may do more harm than good and moving to 
GitHub or BitBucket doesn't necessarily increase contributions. 
 

> First, let me say it loudly: I *don't* like git. I find mercurial easier 
> and more intuitive than git. But, on the other hand, Github has quite 
> some good features compared to googlecode:
>
I don't like Git either, and I must say that for me it is not a sufficient 
reason to move to GitHub. I am using it for PySide and submitted occasional 
pull requests for different projects, and must say that even with GitHub it 
is still not perfect. Git is much harder to start than Mercurial, and its 
command names are not as intuitive as Mercurial.
 

> 1. It's pull request system. Now that there are three or four of us 
> working regularly on Spyder, I think it would be better that everyone 
> could check the changes others made, before committing to the main tree. 
> This would improve code quality and we could also discuss implementation 
> issues more deeply and work on them in personal branches instead of 
> adding partial of half baked things to the tree.
>
This is a matter of proper code review culture. I use 
http://codereview.appspot.com which has a lot more potential than GitHub 
review system, not only just because it is open source, but also because it 
is not Git specific. In Rietveld, which powers codereview.appspot.com we 
require that all, even the most simple commits should be reviewed before 
commit. The same tool is used for Chromium code reviews, and it would be 
nice to see this integrated into Spyder.

I'd like to see some examples of working workflow with deep discussions and 
the stuff that improves code quality at GitHub first.

2. Github pages. Github lets its users to upload static web pages as 
> special repo branches. This would give us the possibility to create a 
> pretty good looking website for Spyder based on Sphinx, that anyone in 
> the project could improve and update at will.
>
Google Code serves static web pages directly from repository. For example:
http://liten.googlecode.com/hg/docs/liten_documentation.html

If you want to base website on Sphinx, GitHub won't regenerate static pages 
for you automatically, so it won't be as convenient for anyone in the 
project to improve and update it at will as it is currently with the wiki. 
I think that Spyder's usage of Google Code wiki is awesome.
 

> 3. Most python scientific projects are now on Github (IPython, 
> matplotlib, numpy, scipy, enthought), so this could improve cross 
> collaboration and probably it could attract more contributors.
>
I would say otherwise - probably is won't attract more contributors. If you 
like to improve a project - you just need an easy way to make your 
contribution, get review and improve it - although trendy sites like GitHub 
help with that - you need to know exactly - where can they help you and if 
it really worth sacrificing things you already have.
 

> Those are my main points. What do you think?
>
1. Migrations are bad. At SCons the development is halted for I believe 
more than two months already, because nobody has the time to complete (or 
learn how to complete) the migration
2. I am more from development camp than from scientific, so prefer to work 
on my own development tools for features like code reviews and source 
control than to use services like GitHub that force me into using tools I 
don't like

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"spyder" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/spyderlib/-/CGHDWW0nqGcJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en.

Reply via email to