Forum: Ruby-Gnome 2 Any chance of moving development to Git and GitHub?

Hi!

I know that we discussed this earlier, but I wanted to bring it up
again.  Is there any chance of moving development to Git and GitHub?
I am utterly frustrated with Subversion being unable to help me in any
way in managing my changes.  I’m also quite bored with updating
ChangeLogs instead of code, but that’s a separate matter.

So, what would it take to perform such a move?

On 15 September 2011 00:16, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I know that we discussed this earlier, but I wanted to bring it up
> again.  Is there any chance of moving development to Git and GitHub?

Why github?

github is very bad for project hosting.

Sure, it's nice for small personal repos or repo mirrors but the only
nice thing it has over plain gitweb for project management is showing
the project README file on the repo page.

Thanks

Michal

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:10, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> 
wrote:
> On 15 September 2011 00:16, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

>> I know that we discussed this earlier, but I wanted to bring it up
>> again.  Is there any chance of moving development to Git and GitHub?

> Why github?
>
> github is very bad for project hosting.

That’s a matter of opinion.  Until you actually contribute code to
Ruby-GNOME2 I’d ask you from refraining to comment in such a manner.

> Sure, it's nice for small personal repos or repo mirrors but the only
> nice thing it has over plain gitweb for project management is showing
> the project README file on the repo page.

I’m sorry, but this is a rather lousy description.

GitHub provides great uptime, is integrated into the Ruby community,
and is generally a lot easier to manage than an alternative (as in not
having to manage it).  SourceForge has Git support, sure, but
SourceForge is rather clunky for most tasks.

On 15 September 2011 16:16, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
> That’s a matter of opinion.  Until you actually contribute code to
> Ruby-GNOME2 I’d ask you from refraining to comment in such a manner.

Technically I already did though very little.

Still contributing code has nothing to do with the merits of Github
for project hosting. It's terrible. I saw a few projects hosted there
already, yuck.

> SourceForge is rather clunky for most tasks.
So is github for anything but pushing code.

Their bug tracker is possibly even worse than SF's. No mailing
lists/fora/anything.

The community for a project like ruby-gnome2 consists not only of
committers but occasional contributors, application developers, users
of those applications developed, etc.

Github does not have anything for anybody but committers or major 
contributors.

Thanks

Michal

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:26, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> 
wrote:

> Still contributing code has nothing to do with the merits of Github
> for project hosting. It's terrible. I saw a few projects hosted there
> already, yuck.

Yes, it has.  Only people who actually contribute something should
have an opinion in this matter.  That you find GitHub unusable is
fine, but it shouldn’t hinder those who actually contribute from using
it, if they so desire.  That your best description of GitHub is that
it is icky isn’t a good enough reason for not using it.

> Their bug tracker is possibly even worse than SF's.

I guess you haven’t actually used GitHub’s bug tracker (recently)?  Or 
SF’s?

> The community for a project like ruby-gnome2 consists not only of
> committers but occasional contributors, application developers, users
> of those applications developed, etc.

> Github does not have anything for anybody but committers or major contributors.

Seeing as we only seem to have committers and major contributors and
very little of anything else, what does that tell you?

And you seem to suggest that the current solution is bringing in all
kinds of other users.  If so, then where are they?

I’m not going to get into an argument about this.  If you feel that
there’s a better alternative than that which I’m proposing, then share
it.  Otherwise, simply stay out of this discussion.

On 15 September 2011 16:46, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
> it is icky isn’t a good enough reason for not using it.
Still migrating from icky SF to icky Github is going to accomplish what 
exactly?

>
>> Their bug tracker is possibly even worse than SF's.
>
> I guess you haven’t actually used GitHub’s bug tracker (recently)?  Or SF’s?

Actually I used both, unfortunately.

They are both very hard to use for somebody outside of a project who
wants to report an issue.

The GitHub one does not even allow attaching files. Testcases anyone?

>
>> The community for a project like ruby-gnome2 consists not only of
>> committers but occasional contributors, application developers, users
>> of those applications developed, etc.
>
>> Github does not have anything for anybody but committers or major contributors.
>
> Seeing as we only seem to have committers and major contributors and
> very little of anything else, what does that tell you?

That either nobody but a handful of committers and major contributors
is interested in ruby-gnome2 at all or everybody finds using the
resources provided by the project hosting so hard that they stay
quiet.

Neither speaks of a very healthy project.

>
> And you seem to suggest that the current solution is bringing in all
> kinds of other users.  If so, then where are they?

I don't know. Is anybody using ruby-gnome2?

I tried but found so many issues with gtk that I turned to dialog(1)
for the time being because I want to have something done, not hunt
bugs in gtk.

>
> I’m not going to get into an argument about this.  If you feel that
> there’s a better alternative than that which I’m proposing, then share
> it.  Otherwise, simply stay out of this discussion.

Github is certainly not the only site to provide free git hosting.

If you are going to put up the effort to move it should rather  be a
better place than the current one, otherwise the effort is wasted.

Thanks

Michal

FWIW, I haven't actively committed much to the project in ages, but I
do follow developments and have used ruby-gnome2 and it's associated
libraries fairly intensively for several years in a commercial
environment.

I'd certainly be very happy to see (at least) the source hosting moved
to github - I've used it both personally and professionally and am
more than satisfied with it.

On 16 September 2011 13:14, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> wrote:
>
> Still migrating from icky SF to icky Github is going to accomplish what exactly?

I've found the barriers to entry to engaging with projects hosted in
github much lower than sourceforge.  Especially with the one click to
fork this project & edit this file, people can submit changes for
review as pull requests with very little friction.

Oh - and no ads.

And the advantages of git.

And convenience for those developers who use github for other things 
anyway.

It doesn't mean we'd have to drop the mailing lists or website or any
of that - just hosting the code would be useful.

> The GitHub one does not even allow attaching files. Testcases anyone?

If it's sample code, gist.github.com is great.

If it's a patch, then a fork/pull request is probably better anyway.

> I don't know. Is anybody using ruby-gnome2?
>
> I tried but found so many issues with gtk that I turned to dialog(1)
> for the time being because I want to have something done, not hunt
> bugs in gtk.

I've been using it for years and  <shameless plug> if you're happy to
be based near Portsmouth, UK and want to be paid to develop using it,
we're hiring: http://www.livelinktechnology.net/about/jobs.livelink
</shameless plug>


HTH,


Geoff

Subject: Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] Any chance of moving development to 
Git and GitHub?
  Date: ven 16 set 11 02:14:58 +0200

Quoting Michal Suchanek (hramrach@centrum.cz):

> I don't know. Is anybody using ruby-gnome2?

I use it regularly. But just the GTK part, a bit of Pango, GDK and
Glib...

There is no other way for me to write user interfaces in Ruby.

Thanks a lot to all the maintainers, by the way...

Carlo

--
  *         Se la Strada e la sua Virtu' non fossero state messe da 
parte,
* K * Carlo E. Prelz - fluido@fluido.as             che bisogno ci 
sarebbe
  *               di parlare tanto di amore e di rettitudine? 
(Chuang-Tzu)

On 16 September 2011 15:35, Geoff Youngs <g@intersect-uk.co.uk> wrote:
> FWIW, I haven't actively committed much to the project in ages, but I
> do follow developments and have used ruby-gnome2 and it's associated
> libraries fairly intensively for several years in a commercial
> environment.
>
> I'd certainly be very happy to see (at least) the source hosting moved
> to github - I've used it both personally and professionally and am
> more than satisfied with it.

Yes, git is much nicer than subversion for sure.

Still git != github.

>
> On 16 September 2011 13:14, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Still migrating from icky SF to icky Github is going to accomplish what 
exactly?
>
> I've found the barriers to entry to engaging with projects hosted in
> github much lower than sourceforge.  Especially with the one click to
> fork this project & edit this file, people can submit changes for
> review as pull requests with very little friction.

So long as they are willing to download git, clone the whole repo,
change the line they wanted to change, and push it to their fork,
learning how to do all that with git in the process.

>
> Oh - and no ads.
>
> And the advantages of git.
>
> And convenience for those developers who use github for other things anyway.
>
> It doesn't mean we'd have to drop the mailing lists or website or any
> of that - just hosting the code would be useful.

I recall I heard something about moving the web site because the SF
hosting tends to fail a lot. Github does not seem to have web hosting.
Or would it be hosted as a wiki? Or yet another place?

>
>> The GitHub one does not even allow attaching files. Testcases anyone?
>
> If it's sample code, gist.github.com is great.

If you know there is gist. Most project hosting sites just have the
option to attach files directly to an issue in tracker.

And if it's an icon with which something does not work than what?
Gist does not seem to allow binary pastes.

>
> If it's a patch, then a fork/pull request is probably better anyway.

So long as you are a developer with git installed. Many people start
out small doing a change to a file or two and creating a patch.
Sending it to a ML is an option too I guess but the tracker just won't
do in this case.

Github is kind of awesome it its own way but also very limiting in
what you can do with it. It forces you to use git for *everything*.

Thanks

Michal