[Python-Dev] PEP 481 - Migrate Some Supporting Repositories to Git and Github

[Brett Cannon]

On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:05:22 PM Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

> Thanks for taking charge, Brett.
>
> I personally think this shouldn't be brought up at the summit -- it's
> likely to just cause lots of heat about git vs. hg, free vs. not-free,
> "loyalty" to free or open tools, the weighing of core committers'
> preferences vs. outside contributors' preferences, GitHub's diversity track
> record, with no new information added. Even if we *just* had a vote by
> show-of-hands at the summit that would just upset those who couldn't be
> present.
>

Well, if I'm going to be the Great Decider on this then I can say upfront
I'm taking a pragmatic view of preferring open but not mandating it,
preferring hg over git but not ruling out a switch, preferring Python-based
tools but not viewing it as a negative to not use Python, etc. I would like
to think I have earned somewhat of a reputation of being level-headed and
so none of this should really be a surprise to anyone.

So if we did have a discussion at the summit and someone decided to argue
for FLOSS vs. not as a key factor then I would politely cut them off and
say that doesn't matter to me and move on.  As I said, I would moderate the
conversation to keep it on-task and not waste my time with points that have
already been made and flagged by me and you as not deal-breakers. And any
votes would be to gauge the feeling of the room and not as a binding
decision; I assume either me or someone else is going to be the dictator on
this and this won't be a majority decision.


>
> But I'll leave that up to you. The only thing I ask you is not to give me
> the last word. I might just do something you regret. :-)
>

What about me doing something that *I* regret like taking this on? =)

-Brett


>
> --Guido
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
>> So I was waiting for Nick to say what he wanted to do for the peps repo
>> since I view it as I get 2/3 of the choices and he gets the other third.
>>
>> The way I view it, the options are:
>>
>>    1. Move to GitHub
>>    2. Move to Bitbucket
>>    3. Improve our current tooling (either through new hosting setup
>>    and/or adding first-world support for downloading PRs from GitHub/Bitbucket)
>>
>> Regardless of what we do, I think we should graduate the mirrors on
>> GitHub and Bitbucket to "official" -- for the proposed repos and cpython --
>> and get their repos updating per-push instead of as a cron job. I also
>> think we should also flip on any CI we can (e.g. turn on Travis for GitHub
>> along with coveralls support using coverage.py's encodings trick
>> <https://hg.python.org/devinabox/file/1eeb96fe98f1/README#l124>). This
>> will get us the most accessible repo backups as well as the widest tool
>> coverage for contributors to assist them in their contributions (heck, even
>> if we just get regular coverage reports for Python that would be a great
>> win out of all of this).
>>
>> Now as for whether we should move the repos, I see two possibilities to
>> help make that decision. One is we end up with 3 PEPs corresponding to the
>> 3 proposals outlined above, get them done before PyCon, and then we have a
>> discussion at the language summit where we can either make a decision or
>> see what the pulse at the conference and sprints then make a decision
>> shortly thereafter (I can moderate the summit discussion to keep this
>> on-task and minimize the rambling; if Guido wants I can even make the final
>> call since I have already played the role of "villain" for our issue
>> tracker and hg decisions).
>>
>> The other option is we take each one of the 3 proposed repos and
>> pilot/experiment with them on a different platform. I would put peps on
>> GitHub (as per Guido's comment of getting PRs from there already), the
>> devguide on Bitbucket, and leave devinabox on hg.python.org but with the
>> motivation of getting better tooling in place to contribute to it. We can
>> then see if anything changes between now and PyCon and then discuss what
>> occurred there (if we can't get the word out about this experiment and get
>> new tooling up and going on the issue tracker in the next 4 months then
>> that's another data point about how much people do/don't care about any of
>> this). Obviously if we end up needing more time we don't *have* to make
>> a decision at PyCon, but it's a good goal to have. I don't think we can
>> cleanly replicate a single repo on all three solutions as I sure don't want
>> to deal with that merging fun (unless someone comes forward to be basically
>> a "release manager" for one of the repos to make that experiment happen).
>>
>> So do people want PEPs or experimentation first?
>>
>> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 8:24:16 AM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 December 2014 at 01:38, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>> > As far as I'm concerned I'm just waiting for your decision now.
>>>
>>> The RhodeCode team got in touch with me offline to suggest the
>>> possibility of using RhodeCode Enterprise as a self-hosted solution
>>> rather than a volunteer-supported installation of Kallithea. I'll be
>>> talking to them tomorrow, and if that discussion goes well, will
>>> update PEP 474 (and potentially PEP 462) accordingly.
>>>
>>> Given that that would take away the "volunteer supported" vs
>>> "commercially supported" distinction between self-hosting and using
>>> GitHub (as well as potentially building a useful relationship that may
>>> help us resolve other workflow issues in the future), I'd like us to
>>> hold off on any significant decisions regarding the fate of any of the
>>> repos until I've had a chance to incorporate the results of that
>>> discussion into my proposals.
>>>
>>> As described in PEP 474, I'm aware of the Mercurial team's concerns
>>> with RhodeCode's current licensing, but still consider it a superior
>>> alternative to an outright proprietary solution that doesn't get us
>>> any closer to solving the workflow problems with the main CPython
>>> repo.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nick.
>>>
>>> P.S. I'll also bring up some of the RFEs raised in this discussion
>>> around making it possible for folks to submit pull requests via
>>> GitHub/BitBucket, even if the master repositories are hosted on PSF
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141202/0882ebc0/attachment.html>