Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> writes:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:16:36AM -0800, mathog wrote:
On 05-Feb-2016 05:40, Eduard Braun wrote:
In general I would avoid splitting the code repository from the bug tracker as those two are closely related and often intertwined. It hinders efficiency a lot when tracking bugs elsewhere.
I agree with that - everything in one place. Moving to git is fine so long as the entire history of the project makes the transition, all the bugs, all the revisions, and so forth. There shouldn't be anything "left behind" on launchpad. Not that I have any idea how one would go about doing this sort of migration, never having used git except to download entire projects for a local build.
The git repository itself should be straightforward. I've done bzr -> git on a bunch of trees without any trouble. I've not attempted on Inkscape itself, but others have already reported they've experimented and it went straightforward.
Emacs converted from Bzr to Git. The conversion wasn't straightforward, but the tool "reposurgeon" helped solve the issues. Inkscape is probably a more straightforward conversion, as evidenced by the conversions already demonstrated in this thread.
Bugs I think will be much harder to transition. There is no standardized storage for bugs like there is with git, and not really any established data spec, so unless a target site advertises a specific "Launchpad bug import" function, it's going to be a fair bit of work to write a converter.
Launchpad's data sources have an API so exporting the bugs should not be a problem technically, just a lot of python coding. Whatever we would move them to would obviously need an import API (and ideally an export API in case we decide to change providers down the road!) So if we want to keep things together, we would HAVE to have someone own this coding project. (Unless someone knows of an existing converter tool?)
I do see the value in keeping bug tracking and vcs hosting together - it was one of the selling points to move to Launchpad to begin with after all. And frankly I'd say its one of the reasons we've stuck with bzr longer than we probably should have... But I think there's a point where the benefit of moving to git is strong enough to do it regardless of whether the bug tracker follows. I don't know where we are on that scale, but I do think we're going to eventually hit a point where we just gotta move, and handle the bug tracker as a separate problem.
I'm also really skeptical that github/gitlab's bug hosting is going to cut the mustard for our bug folks. And like I said, even if it does, I'm really worried that transferring the bug data promises would be a huge amount of work.
There seems to be some organizational drama going on at Github right now:
http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2
My dystopian prediction is that Github will eventually turn into Sourceforge.
In my view, moving to Gitlab would avoid that risk. Gitlabs core feature set is free software. If Gitlab also turns into sourceforge, Inkskape can set up its own Gitlab instance, at least in principle. (I have set up a Gitlab instance, and it is fairly straghtforward)
Bryce
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140________... Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel