[AstroPy] proposal for astropy version control software and respository

Tom Aldcroft aldcroft at head.cfa.harvard.edu
Sat Jul 16 07:32:32 EDT 2011


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Peter Erwin <erwin at mpe.mpg.de> wrote:
> I'm concerned that this poll is perhaps a little premature and not
> sufficiently well justified. It feels a trifle too much like "A small
> group of us got together and decided what to do; we're not really
> interested in your input or in explaining our reasons or in having a
> wider discussion first, so just vote on it."
>
> (I realize I'm way overdoing the atrribution of sinister motives here,
> and I apologize; but this is in rather stark constrast with the ongoing
> discussion over documentation, which seems to be progressing well in
> evaluating the various alternatives and answering questions raised....)
>
>
> So... unpack, please!
>
> * Why git, and not mercurial (or even bazaar)?
>
> (My understanding is that mercurial -- which I've used -- is closer
> in syntax and commands to subversion than is the case for git, which
> argues for mercurial as possibly more accessible to people who
> haven't worked with either before, but who have worked with svn or
> CVS...)
>
> * Why github, and not, say Bitbucket or Google Code?

Based on what was evident at the SciPy conference, essentially
everyone that is using DVCS is using github.  Including Numpy, Scipy,
IPython.  I talked to people that have migrated away from google code
(didn't ask precisely why, but the answer that you don't find a ton of
Python projects there is probably a good one).

During the talk on the amazing work on on IPython 0.11 over the last
year, Fernando said that one huge factor in their success was using
github.  They did over 2000 commits and didn't totally hose things up.
 Granted they were coming from bzr/launchpad which has lots of
problems, but the point is that github's UI is significantly better
than the rest.  Things like code review and cross-repo compares are
amazing.  A colleague of mine who is hardcore mercurial did a close
comparison of github vs. bitbucket and decided that github is way
better (and decided to use hg-git to basically take his hg repos and
host on github as needed).

>
>
> (I'm not saying that this has to be a long, drawn-out discussion by any
> means; but at the moment the haste and lack of justification tempts me
> to vote "No" largely as method of protest.)
>
>   -- Peter
>
> On Jul 15, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote:
>
>> Given discussions at scipy (consisting primarily of a good number of
>> people from STScI, CFA/Chandra, and Gemini) it seemed clear to most of
>> us there that the most straightforward choice for the astropy version
>> control software and repository was git and github. This is what most
>> of the science-based Python projects are using and they generally seem
>> quite happy with it. Since we are encouraging distributed
>> contributions, it also would seem we should favor a distributed vcs
>> over a non-distributed one (i.e., svn). So we (Erik, Tom and me) are
>> proposing that we simply put this particular choice to a yes/no vote.
>> Here is a link to the poll:
>>
>> http://astropy.wikispaces.com/VCS+and+hosting+poll
>>
>> Should there be a significant level of objection to this, we'll look
>> at seeing if there is a stronger consensus for something else.
>>
>> Perry
>> _______________________________________________
>> AstroPy mailing list
>> AstroPy at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>
> =============================================================
> Peter Erwin                   Max-Planck-Insitute for Extraterrestrial
> erwin at mpe.mpg.de              Physics, Giessenbachstrasse
> tel. +49 (0)89 30000 3695     85748 Garching, Germany
> fax  +49 (0)89 30000 3495     http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~erwin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AstroPy mailing list
> AstroPy at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>
>



More information about the AstroPy mailing list