Request For Comments: Moving Flake8 development to Git
Hey all, Since the beginning Flake8 has been developed entirely in mercurial. There's been some push back lately about it not being available in git. For a time there, Bruno maintained a git mirror on which we accepted pull requests, but neither of us had the time to maintain it after a while. Given the popularity of git, it seems reasonable to move the development. There are tools to preserve the repository history so nothing will be lost. What does the code-quality community think? Cheers, Ian
Le 12/09/14 01:40, Ian Cordasco a écrit :
Hey all,
Since the beginning Flake8 has been developed entirely in mercurial. There's been some push back lately about it not being available in git. For a time there, Bruno maintained a git mirror on which we accepted pull requests, but neither of us had the time to maintain it after a while. Given the popularity of git, it seems reasonable to move the development. There are tools to preserve the repository history so nothing will be lost.
What does the code-quality community think? sounds good to me
Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ code-quality mailing list code-quality@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
I think it's a good idea. I personally dislike contributing to hg-based projects because it's such a faff for me compared to using git, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are put off contributing for a similar reason (not that I'm saying the reason is good, I'm just lazy!)
On 12 septembre 08:18, Carl Crowder wrote:
I think it's a good idea. I personally dislike contributing to hg-based projects because it's such a faff for me compared to using git, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are put off contributing for a similar reason (not that I'm saying the reason is good, I'm just lazy!)
Isn't this rather a question of platform - github vs bitbucket ? On the command line tool side, I personnaly feel like mercurial is easier for newcomers. On the other hand, for power user, the hg+evolve workflow is very powerful. Ok, I'm biased since I know more about hg than git ;) -- Sylvain Thénault, LOGILAB, Paris (01.45.32.03.12) - Toulouse (05.62.17.16.42) Formations Python, Debian, Méth. Agiles: http://www.logilab.fr/formations Développement logiciel sur mesure: http://www.logilab.fr/services CubicWeb, the semantic web framework: http://www.cubicweb.org
I was actually wondering if we should just keep it on BitBucket but convert it to git. This would allow the URL to remain the same so people will not be misled to the old repository. Granted clicking a link to take them to the git version isn't terrible but it just seems easier. Also while I'm the most active maintainer I wouldn't feel right recreating the repo under my account. If we do move to GitHub, I would rather make an organization to house the repo and probably flake8-docstrings.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov@gmail.com> wrote:
I was actually wondering if we should just keep it on BitBucket but convert it to git. This would allow the URL to remain the same so people will not be misled to the old repository.
I had exactly this problem with pylockfile. Both for finding the repo, and the distributions. If you're happy enough with BitBucket and it supports git, that is the path I would choose. Skip
On 9/12/14, Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov@gmail.com> wrote:
I was actually wondering if we should just keep it on BitBucket but convert it to git. This would allow the URL to remain the same so people will not be misled to the old repository.
I had exactly this problem with pylockfile. Both for finding the repo, and the distributions. If you're happy enough with BitBucket and it supports git, that is the path I would choose.
Skip
Yeah, BitBucket does support it. While I'm not exactly a fan of BitBucket, it might be best to just continue hosting the repository for this reason. flake8 has been there for 3 (or more) years now and that's where people likely expect it to be. I consider this more-so to be Tarek's decision though and in light of his latest email I created the PyCQA org on GitHub to have something to host it under. It's in the tradition of PyCA and PyPA (Python Cryptographic and Packaging Authorities), but it can be renamed before we add any repos to it since it can sound rather presumptuous to some (even though it's mostly in jest).
Le 12/09/14 14:35, Ian Cordasco a écrit :
I was actually wondering if we should just keep it on BitBucket but convert it to git. This would allow the URL to remain the same so people will not be misled to the old repository. Granted clicking a link to take them to the git version isn't terrible but it just seems easier. Also while I'm the most active maintainer I wouldn't feel right recreating the repo under my account. If we do move to GitHub, I would rather make an organization to house the repo and probably flake8-docstrings.
Some kind of QA org seems like a good move. I can always archive my BB repo and keep a single README that points to the new stuff.
_______________________________________________ code-quality mailing list code-quality@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> writes:
On 12 septembre 08:18, Carl Crowder wrote:
I think it's a good idea. I personally dislike contributing to hg-based projects because it's such a faff for me compared to using git, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are put off contributing for a similar reason (not that I'm saying the reason is good, I'm just lazy!)
Isn't this rather a question of platform - github vs bitbucket ?
No, using Git doesn't imply GitHub hosting. Likewise, using Mercurial doesn't imply Bitbucket hosting. I think it's a better idea to host a repository on something like a Gitorious instance, since it avoids proprietary extensions (such as those of GitHub) to ensure there's no lock-in to a specific provider. So please, mke the decision of which VCS *system* independent of which *hosting service*. And please choose a hosting service without proprietary extensions.
On the command line tool side, I personnaly feel like mercurial is easier for newcomers. On the other hand, for power user, the hg+evolve workflow is very powerful. Ok, I'm biased since I know more about hg than git ;)
I certainly agree that Mercurial is much more straightforward on the command line than Git. -- \ “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian | `\ Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ | _o__) | Ben Finney
Le 13/09/14 09:52, Ben Finney a écrit :
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> writes:
On 12 septembre 08:18, Carl Crowder wrote:
I think it's a good idea. I personally dislike contributing to hg-based projects because it's such a faff for me compared to using git, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are put off contributing for a similar reason (not that I'm saying the reason is good, I'm just lazy!) Isn't this rather a question of platform - github vs bitbucket ? No, using Git doesn't imply GitHub hosting. Likewise, using Mercurial doesn't imply Bitbucket hosting.
I think it's a better idea to host a repository on something like a Gitorious instance, since it avoids proprietary extensions (such as those of GitHub) to ensure there's no lock-in to a specific provider.
So please, mke the decision of which VCS *system* independent of which *hosting service*. And please choose a hosting service without proprietary extensions.
This is very true - however the (sad) truth is that having a project on github.com boosts contributions like nowhere else - and I guess at the end of the day it's still beneficial for OSS. Cheers Tarek
On 9/13/14, Tarek Ziadé <tarek@ziade.org> wrote:
Le 13/09/14 09:52, Ben Finney a écrit :
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> writes:
On 12 septembre 08:18, Carl Crowder wrote:
I think it's a good idea. I personally dislike contributing to hg-based projects because it's such a faff for me compared to using git, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are put off contributing for a similar reason (not that I'm saying the reason is good, I'm just lazy!) Isn't this rather a question of platform - github vs bitbucket ? No, using Git doesn't imply GitHub hosting. Likewise, using Mercurial doesn't imply Bitbucket hosting.
I think it's a better idea to host a repository on something like a Gitorious instance, since it avoids proprietary extensions (such as those of GitHub) to ensure there's no lock-in to a specific provider.
So please, mke the decision of which VCS *system* independent of which *hosting service*. And please choose a hosting service without proprietary extensions.
This is very true - however the (sad) truth is that having a project on github.com boosts contributions like nowhere else - and I guess at the end of the day it's still beneficial for OSS.
I only replied to Tarek instead of the list. Sorry Tarek that you're going to get this twice So given the consensus was to move it away from BitBucket, and we would like to not get stuck with proprietary sites like GitHub. How does this plan sound? We will host the mainline development on an entirely free site - GitLab - and mirror the repository on GitHub for visibility. We will disable issues on GitHub but still accept pull requests via GitHub. My reason for preferring GitLab over Gitorious is that GitLab allows users to sign in with their GitHub login, so if someone already has a GitHub account, they can simply authorize GitLab to have read access to their user data and then create and comment on issues. Cheers, Ian
participants (6)
-
Ben Finney -
Carl Crowder -
Ian Cordasco -
Skip Montanaro -
Sylvain Thénault -
Tarek Ziadé