18 Mar
2011
18 Mar
'11
10:40 a.m.
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
18 Mar
18 Mar
10:41 a.m.
+1 but provided:
1) We don't this before 3.0 final is released
2) We verify first that we can read/write using the GitHub SVN bridge and that the SVNApp
works with GitHub (since some users are using it for contrib)
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
11:07 a.m.
Big +1 here.
Caleb
On 03/18/2011 05:41 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
+1 but provided:
1) We don't this before 3.0 final is released
2) We verify first that we can read/write using the GitHub SVN bridge and that the SVNApp
works with GitHub (since some users are using it for contrib)
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:59 a.m.
+1
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
3:24 p.m.
Big +1 as well
Alex
On 03/18/2011 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5:12 p.m.
Very big +1 :)
Denis
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 15:24, Alex Busenius
<alex.busenius(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
Big +1 as well
Alex
On 03/18/2011 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's
source to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt
branching
/ diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to
fork/branch and we can see
contributor's patches (pull requests) and apply them
way more easily than
with subversion
* More collaboration in general between
committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views
of
forked/branched repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can
continue using SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this
is handled by GitHub
itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as
good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there
I'm
not worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on
all users' machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
19 Mar
19 Mar
4:23 a.m.
On 03/18/2011 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
Offline commits, and offline (and faster and more powerful) access to
the full commit history are very important in my opinion.
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch
and we can see contributor's patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily
than with subversion
+ more visibility/recognition for the contributors, since they are
preserved as the authors.
* More collaboration in general between committers and
contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
I wouldn't call it a better SCM site, since other tools offer nice views
of the repository. But it is a better source *collaboration* site since
it shows forks/branches/pulls very nicely.
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
svnsearch won't be that needed since git/github offer many of those
tools natively, but the graphs from svnsearch are easier to obtain and
show live.
IDE integrations should work just as well (if not better) with Git.
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is
handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
+1, I've been doing this for a couple of years already and I'm happy
with the experience.
* POM changes for the new repository configuration.
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
Do you mean that access rights should be defined in xwiki.org as it is
now, with the CommittersGroup? I guess that's not possible.
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
I already started doing that, I should find some time to finish
importing applications and plugins. Before doing the final switch I
should re-synchronize with the svn repository.
Should the contrib repository be imported as well?
One problem is that the default size limit is for 300M of data, and
we're already approaching that limit (thanks to the early non-maven days
when we bundled all the jars in our repo). I think that if we request
it, we'll be granted more space for free, as an open source project.
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other
OSS projects there I'm not worried and there's no lock in since your have the
repos spread on all users' machines)
Yep, a lot of big names are moving there.
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
+1.
And replying to your other mail, +1 for doing it after the 3.0 release,
but as soon as possible after that, so that we can get familiar with it
and iron out any quirks before the 3.1M1 release.
We should write a GitApp, similar to the SvnApp, which works directly
with a git repository.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
8:35 a.m.
On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Please let's focus frist on the 3.0 final release before we start working on Git :)
Sure but I'd rather we quickly verify that the current SVNApp works with the GitHub
SVN integration for now.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 03/18/2011 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes that's what I meant.
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
Offline commits, and offline (and faster and more powerful) access to
the full commit history are very important in my opinion.
* More contributors since it's easy to
fork/branch and we can see contributor's patches (pull requests) and apply them way
more easily than with subversion
+ more visibility/recognition for the contributors, since they are
preserved as the authors.
* More collaboration in general between
committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
I wouldn't call it a better SCM site, since other tools offer nice views
of the repository. But it is a better source *collaboration* site since
it shows forks/branches/pulls very nicely.
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
svnsearch won't be that needed since git/github offer many of those
tools natively, but the graphs from svnsearch are easier to obtain and
show live.
IDE integrations should work just as well (if not better) with Git.
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this
is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
+1, I've been doing this for a couple of years already and I'm happy
with the experience.
* POM changes for the new repository configuration.
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
Do you mean that access rights should be defined in xwiki.org as it is
now, with the CommittersGroup? I guess that's not possible. * Import/reorg work to be done obviously
I already started doing that, I should find some time to finish importing applications and plugins. Before doing the
final switch I
should re-synchronize with the svn repository.
Should the contrib repository be imported as well?
I'd say yes. We need to check how well the SVN integration works in GitHub
One problem is that the default size limit is for 300M
of data, and
we're already approaching that limit (thanks to the early non-maven days
when we bundled all the jars in our repo). I think that if we request
it, we'll be granted more space for free, as an open source project.
Well we better ask ASAP before we start any move since this is critical for a move.
* Reliance on
an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not worried and
there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users' machines)
Yep, a lot of big names are moving there.
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
+1.
And replying to your other mail, +1 for doing it after the 3.0 release,
but as soon as possible after that, so that we can get familiar with it
and iron out any quirks before the 3.1M1 release.
We should write a GitApp, similar to the SvnApp, which works directly
with a git repository. 
21 Mar
21 Mar
1:50 p.m.
+1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:35, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Yes that's what I meant.
Please let's focus frist on the 3.0 final release before we start working
on Git :)
On 03/18/2011 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's
source to GitHub.
>
> Pros:
> * Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt
branching / diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
Offline commits, and offline (and faster and more powerful) access to
the full commit history are very important in my opinion.
> * More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see
contributor's patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than
with subversion
+ more visibility/recognition for the contributors, since they are
preserved as the authors.
> * More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
> * A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views
of
forked/branched repos, etc)
I wouldn't call it a better SCM site, since other tools offer nice views
of the repository. But it is a better source *collaboration* site since
it shows forks/branches/pulls very nicely.
> * Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
> * GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can
continue using SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
svnsearch won't be that needed since git/github offer many of those
tools natively, but the graphs from svnsearch are easier to obtain and
show live.
IDE integrations should work just as well (if not better) with Git.
> * Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub
itself
> * Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as
good as ours if not
better)
*
Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
+1, I've been doing this for a couple of years already and I'm happy
with the experience.
* POM changes for the new repository configuration.
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
Do you mean that access rights should be defined in xwiki.org as it is
now, with the CommittersGroup? I guess that's not possible. * Import/reorg work to be done obviously
I already started doing that, I should find some time to finish importing applications and plugins. Before doing
the final switch I
should re-synchronize with the svn repository.
Should the contrib repository be imported as well?
I'd say yes. We need to check how well the SVN integration works in GitHub
One problem is that the default size limit is for
300M of data, and
we're already approaching that limit (thanks to the early non-maven days
when we bundled all the jars in our repo). I think that if we request
it, we'll be granted more space for free, as an open source project.
Well we better ask ASAP before we start any move since this is critical for
a move.
> * Reliance on an external provider (but seen
the other OSS projects
there I'm not worried and there's no lock in since
your have the repos
spread on all users' machines)
Yep, a lot of big names are moving there.
Sure but I'd rather we quickly verify that the current SVNApp works with
the GitHub SVN integration for now.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
+1.
And replying to your other mail, +1 for doing it after the 3.0 release,
but as soon as possible after that, so that we can get familiar with it
and iron out any quirks before the 3.1M1 release.
We should write a GitApp, similar to the SvnApp, which works directly
with a git repository. 
2:18 p.m.
+1
Thanks,
Marius
On 03/18/2011 11:40 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:21 p.m.
+1
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like test the waters and see what you'd feel about moving XWiki's source
to GitHub.
Pros:
* Use Git instead of Subversion. Which means a better SCM especially wrt branching /
diagnosins bugs (bissect) just to name 2
* More contributors since it's easy to fork/branch and we can see contributor's
patches (pull requests) and apply them way more easily than with subversion
* More collaboration in general between committers and contributors
* A better SCM web site (check github.com - offers graphs/stats, views of forked/branched
repos, etc)
* Good buzz for us (tech marketing)
* GitHub provides SVN integration (see
https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support) which means we can continue using
SVN tools such as svnsearch, ohloh, our IDE integrations, etc
* Less admin work and less maintenance since this is handled by GitHub itself
* Good uptime on GitHub (probably at least as good as ours if not better)
* Improved developer spirit since most devs wants to start using Git
Cons:
* Have to learn a new SCM/new tools
* No integration of users with xwiki.org
* Import/reorg work to be done obviously
* Reliance on an external provider (but seen the other OSS projects there I'm not
worried and there's no lock in since your have the repos spread on all users'
machines)
IMO the pros heavily outweight the cons.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
4981
days inactive
4984
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Alex Busenius -
Caleb James DeLisle -
Denis Gervalle -
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Fabio Mancinelli -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol