Supporting interworking with repository branches on github
As you are already aware, at the SF Zope sprint we used Git and github for our work. The work contained in https://github.com/zopefoundation is by people who have already signed the Zope Foundation contributor agreement. While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github. We want to do this in a way that maintains flexibility for code committed to Git to also be committed to svn.zope.org, so it would be helpful to get a list of Name, Email, username for svn.zope.org committers to facilitate the creation of an author mapping file. (Presumably this information is in LDAP or similar.) We would of course be happy to hand administration rights of the github organization to the Zope Foundation if it was felt to be helpful in ensuring that contributions to that repository counted under the committer agreement. Laurence
Hi Laurence, Am 22.11.2011, 18:13 Uhr, schrieb Laurence Rowe <l@lrowe.co.uk>:
While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control,
What's this about the Zope Foundation deliberating, why don't you just say prevaricating?, on version control? I thought Tres presented a cogent argument for maintaining the status quo and stick with svn.
I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. FWIW the STD justification for something ("everyone else has got syphilis so I want it, too.") is never a good one. Enough of the linguistic shilly-shallying. I do think that we need something like PIPs or PLIPs for Zope 4 (jokingly referred to as ZIPs in one of my recent posts) to work through some of the suggestions that have been made. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting & Research German Office Kronenstr. 27a Düsseldorf D- 40217 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
As you are already aware, at the SF Zope sprint we used Git and github for our work. The work contained in https://github.com/zopefoundation is by people who have already signed the Zope Foundation contributor agreement.
While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github. We want to do this in a way that maintains flexibility for code committed to Git to also be committed to svn.zope.org, so it would be helpful to get a list of Name, Email, username for svn.zope.org committers to facilitate the creation of an author mapping file. (Presumably this information is in LDAP or similar.)
We would of course be happy to hand administration rights of the github organization to the Zope Foundation if it was felt to be helpful in ensuring that contributions to that repository counted under the committer agreement.
Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here: you should be thinking of the existing Github branches as merely "scratchpads" for the sprint work, which should be merged into the canonical repository when they are ready. It is not appropriate for a small subset of the community to preempt this kind of choid: "ask forgiveness rather than permission" is *not* going to fly here, and trying to push harder only irritates folks you might otherwise persuade. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7MGD8ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4XsgCgxMz1AtXcWXrv4EFnPxzhk9a4 qfQAn1DL5LhBqTqrCw6PUXxOCN7tSSX7 =EHmW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> [2011-11-22 22:46]:
On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github.
Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here [...] It is not appropriate for a small subset of the community to preempt this kind of choid: "ask forgiveness rather than permission" is *not* going to fly here, and trying to push harder only irritates folks you might otherwise persuade.
When reading the emails on this list about this topic, I get a strong feeling of "us vs. them". Is that really necessary? In that light, and trying to make visible the (positive!) aspects of the different opinions, allow me to ask: Tres, while I realize that you also rightly raise the formal issue that a vocal minority shouldn't surge ahead and create facts, do I understand you correctly that the main inherent[1] issue is a legal one, concerning proper handling of copyright etc.? Could someone explain what's at stake here, since at least I only have a vague feeling of "if something in that area goes wrong, it could be really bad"? Laurence, do I understand you correctly that your main concern is ease of use for development and that decentralized version control would be preferable to a centralized one? Do you feel unduly blocked by the need to resolve these (rather tricky) legal issues? Might a technical solution be of use until this is resolved (git can read/write svn, can't it)? Wolfgang [1] Sorry, my English is failing me. I'm looking for a word that means, as opposed to formal.
On 23 November 2011 06:58, Wolfgang Schnerring <ws@gocept.com> wrote:
* Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> [2011-11-22 22:46]:
On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github.
Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here [...] It is not appropriate for a small subset of the community to preempt this kind of choid: "ask forgiveness rather than permission" is *not* going to fly here, and trying to push harder only irritates folks you might otherwise persuade.
When reading the emails on this list about this topic, I get a strong feeling of "us vs. them". Is that really necessary?
In that light, and trying to make visible the (positive!) aspects of the different opinions, allow me to ask:
Tres, while I realize that you also rightly raise the formal issue that a vocal minority shouldn't surge ahead and create facts, do I understand you correctly that the main inherent[1] issue is a legal one, concerning proper handling of copyright etc.? Could someone explain what's at stake here, since at least I only have a vague feeling of "if something in that area goes wrong, it could be really bad"?
Laurence, do I understand you correctly that your main concern is ease of use for development and that decentralized version control would be preferable to a centralized one? Do you feel unduly blocked by the need to resolve these (rather tricky) legal issues? Might a technical solution be of use until this is resolved (git can read/write svn, can't it)?
Yes, we want to benefit from the ease of merging afforded by git and be able to use the excellent facilities that github provides. Unfortunately git-svn is really only a tool for an individual developer (collaboration still takes place in svn) and does not bring the benefits that a real git repository does - the ability to collaborate on github and use the tools provided there. The current scratch repository is a conversion using svn2git, as that has proper support for tags. It's not clear to me what the blocking issues are from the ZF perspective, whether legal or just that most ZF members don't want to use git. Laurence
participants (4)
-
Charlie Clark -
Laurence Rowe -
Tres Seaver -
Wolfgang Schnerring