Difference between revisions of "PMC proposals/Allow some code under github.com/apertium"
(Created page with " {{TOCD}} ==Summary== Some of our contributors prefer using git instead of subversion. Situations where git shines include * being able to accept small patches (or pull requ...") |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* committing without a net connection / on an airplane / in a boat |
* committing without a net connection / on an airplane / in a boat |
||
[[Why do we use SVN]] lists great reasons for why we use subversion in Apertium, and why we shouldn't switch everything over to git (as the earlier [[PMC proposals/Move apertium to github]] argued). But the reasons under [[Why do we use SVN]] mostly have to do with why we shouldn't make subversion users use git; we might still want to be able to call some code "part of the Apertium project" even though it is version-controlled using git, as long as we don't make things harder for those who prefer not to use git. |
[[Why do we use SVN]] lists great reasons for why we use subversion in Apertium, and why we shouldn't switch everything over to git (as the earlier [[PMC proposals/Move apertium to github]] argued). But the reasons under [[Why do we use SVN]] mostly have to do with why we shouldn't make subversion users use git; we might still want to be able to call some code "part of the Apertium project" even though it is version-controlled using git and hosted on github, as long as we don't make things harder for those who prefer not to use git. |
||
People are already using |
People are already using github to host Apertium-related code, just not code that is officially a part of Apertium. This proposal is to allow hosting some of our code under the https://github.com/apertium organisation, where the PMC would be administrators (ensuring code is correctly licensed etc as per our bylaws, similarly to how it happens with SVN on Sourceforge). |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==In detail== |
==In detail== |
||
In keeping with [[Why do we use SVN]], and to ensure installation and setup is easy for new developers, we |
In keeping with [[Why do we use SVN]], and to ensure installation and setup is easy for new developers, we should ''not'' allow hosting actual translators or build/runtime dependencies of translators (monolingual packages/apertium/lttoolbox) under https://github.com/apertium -- these should stay in SVN as before. (We can't stop anyone putting things under https://github.com/anyone/apertium-foo-bar, but that would be unofficial and not endorsed.) |
||
Packages that currently exist in SVN might be candidates for moving to github if they're not translators/dependents of translators, and if their main contributors agree that the package should be moved. The http://sourceforge.net/p/apertium/svn/HEAD/tree/trunk/apertium-tools/ directory holds some possible candidates. |
Packages that currently exist in SVN might be candidates for moving to github if they're not translators/dependents of translators, and if their main contributors agree that the package should be moved. The http://sourceforge.net/p/apertium/svn/HEAD/tree/trunk/apertium-tools/ directory holds some possible candidates. |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
* '''For''' [[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (CET) |
* '''For''' [[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (CET) |
||
* '''For''' - we can quite easily keep the svn side of any moved package authoritative by making that part a read-only mirror of the git repo. [[User:Tino Didriksen|Tino Didriksen]] ([[User talk:Tino Didriksen|talk]]) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (CET) |
|||
* '''For''' --[[User:Jacob Nordfalk|Jacob Nordfalk]] ([[User talk:Jacob Nordfalk|talk]]) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (CET) |
|||
===Against=== |
===Against=== |
||
* '''Against''' --[[User:Fsanchez|fsanchez]] ([[User talk:Fsanchez|talk]]) 11:24, 16 January 2015 (CET) I think that having the Apertium stuff in more than one repository has more drawbacks than advantages. It is confusing. |
|||
* '''Against''' --[[User:Mlforcada|Mlforcada]] ([[User talk:Mlforcada|talk]]) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (CET) Same reasoning as Felipe |
|||
===Abstain=== |
===Abstain=== |
||
* '''Abstain''' [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] ([[User talk:Francis Tyers|talk]]) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (CET) |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Latest revision as of 08:06, 30 January 2015
Summary[edit]
Some of our contributors prefer using git instead of subversion. Situations where git shines include
- being able to accept small patches (or pull requests) from outside contributors without giving commit access to your repo
- especially relevant for Google Code-in
- using branches for development of new features while keeping the main branch stable
- committing without a net connection / on an airplane / in a boat
Why do we use SVN lists great reasons for why we use subversion in Apertium, and why we shouldn't switch everything over to git (as the earlier PMC proposals/Move apertium to github argued). But the reasons under Why do we use SVN mostly have to do with why we shouldn't make subversion users use git; we might still want to be able to call some code "part of the Apertium project" even though it is version-controlled using git and hosted on github, as long as we don't make things harder for those who prefer not to use git.
People are already using github to host Apertium-related code, just not code that is officially a part of Apertium. This proposal is to allow hosting some of our code under the https://github.com/apertium organisation, where the PMC would be administrators (ensuring code is correctly licensed etc as per our bylaws, similarly to how it happens with SVN on Sourceforge).
Proposed by: User:Unhammer
In detail[edit]
In keeping with Why do we use SVN, and to ensure installation and setup is easy for new developers, we should not allow hosting actual translators or build/runtime dependencies of translators (monolingual packages/apertium/lttoolbox) under https://github.com/apertium -- these should stay in SVN as before. (We can't stop anyone putting things under https://github.com/anyone/apertium-foo-bar, but that would be unofficial and not endorsed.)
Packages that currently exist in SVN might be candidates for moving to github if they're not translators/dependents of translators, and if their main contributors agree that the package should be moved. The http://sourceforge.net/p/apertium/svn/HEAD/tree/trunk/apertium-tools/ directory holds some possible candidates.
The current situation is that there is code on Github.com that is Apertium-related, developed by Apertium contributors, useful to the Apertium project, but scattered across a multitude of users. By transferring some of these repos to https://github.com/apertium we could make it easier for people to find useful Apertium code and contribute to these repos.
Comments[edit]
Voting[edit]
For[edit]
- For unhammer (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (CET)
- For - we can quite easily keep the svn side of any moved package authoritative by making that part a read-only mirror of the git repo. Tino Didriksen (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (CET)
- For --Jacob Nordfalk (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (CET)
Against[edit]
- Against --fsanchez (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2015 (CET) I think that having the Apertium stuff in more than one repository has more drawbacks than advantages. It is confusing.
- Against --Mlforcada (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (CET) Same reasoning as Felipe
Abstain[edit]
- Abstain Francis Tyers (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (CET)
