[Bioperl-l] Possible migration to git/github
cjfields at illinois.edu
Tue Apr 20 17:16:22 EDT 2010
Agreed, we won't move forward with splitting up any code until after we
make the move over to git/github.
I may end up steering clear of the simple approach (using github's
automated svn import) as it's not pulling authors over in an easy way
(web forms?!?), and seems to take forever for even simple repos. I'm
currently attempting a pull this way using jason's google code mirror
for bioperl since code.open-bio.org is comatose. Also looking at
git-svn-abandon and snerp vortex as possible means of conversion.
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 09:05 +0300, Heikki Lehvaslaiho wrote:
> Looking forward to that.
> Do try to do full migration of whole history and leave as it it. It is
> better not to try do two completely separate things, migration and
> splitting, at the same time.
> I am not worried about the size at this point. Git does really
> good job in compressing everything at transfer. For read only access,
> we need to educate people on '--depth 1' option.
> P.S. I am in github with this address. Please sign me in whenever it
> is convenient.
> On 17 April 2010 20:12, Mark A. Jensen <maj at fortinbras.us> wrote:
> > I think it's where we need to go. I agree that this need to move sooner
> > rather than later. I also need to stop procrastinating and figure out git:
> > Learn it, or be one.
> > cheers
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Fields" <cjfields1 at gmail.com>
> > To: "BioPerl List" <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:18 PM
> > Subject: [Bioperl-l] Possible migration to git/github
> >> All,
> >> I wanted to get the BioPerl community's general input on a possible
> >> Subversion to git/github migration for the BioPerl repository. The plans
> >> haven't been finalized in any way. We haven't decided, for instance, on
> >> whether to make github the main site, a read-only mirror, or a downstream
> >> mirror for forking/pulling code from the community (with a central upstream
> >> dev repo for releases). As a preliminary run I will be pushing a test run
> >> to github of bioperl-live (all tags/branches) this weekend.
> >> Thoughts have been circulating among the core developers for some time
> >> about a migration at some point, however recent problems with anon access to
> >> code has made this a more pressing issue. The overall impression I am
> >> getting from the community at large is a move would be a positive thing and
> >> would swing the doors wide open for users to contribute much more easily
> >> (via forking).
> >> Therefore, I would like to outline the positive/negative aspects of a move
> >> to git/github, and a proposed path to migration if one should occur.
> >> Remember, this is a project with 15+ years of code that has already
> >> undergone a recent migration from CVS->SVN. Retaining history and
> >> branches/tags for all bioperl projects is key. We also need to think
> >> logistically about other issues particularly with github (number of
> >> collaborators allowed per account, mapping authors, etc etc).
> >> Personally, I think we should be moving forward with this as soon as
> >> possible, but I personally like git/github so I'm a bit biased. The
> >> recently-added support for in-line code review comments and SVN support has
> >> particularly swayed me:
> >> http://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support
> >> http://github.com/blog/622-inline-commit-notes
> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames? Suggestions?
> >> chris
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bioperl-l mailing list
> >> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> >> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioperl-l mailing list
> > Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l