Re: [Gwt-openlayers-users] GWT-OpenLayers : Vote on an SCM move to BitBucket

[Andrew H. <ahh...@gm...>]

Hi All,

Unless I have overlooked something, 100% of votes are 'YES'. So I will move
to de-commission the SourceForge repository.


Thanks for all your votes :)
--AH


On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Simon Borysiewicz <
sim...@gm...> wrote:

>  YES vote.  I have been working in a team that has been making additions
> to the gwt-openlayers source and would like an easy way to put forward a
> patch for review
>
> regards,
>
> Simon Borysiewicz
>
>  ------------------------------
> *
> *
> *From:* Andrew Hughes [mailto:ahh...@gm...]
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 August 2011 9:55 PM
> *To:* gwt...@li...;
> gwt...@li...
> *Subject:* [Gwt-openlayers-users] GWT-OpenLayers : Vote on an SCM move to
> BitBucket
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is for both the devel and users list. Currently the number of emails
> we receive regarding contributing to the project indicates that the process
> is not straight forward, not easy and not intuitive. This would no doubt
> preclude a lot of "would be" contributors from contributing and something I
> believe we must address.
>
> Goal: Make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute
> without compromising the stability and quality of the codebase.
>
> At this point you can read on or jump the the conclusion and vote at the
> end....
>
> *How Distributed Version Control Should be Used (IMHO):*
>
> Distributed version control should pass through a hierarchy of repositories
> as it makes its way onto the stable baseline that releases are cut from
> (Linus would probably call this a 'network of trust'). Believe it or not,
> this is more about opening up access to source control than it is
> restricting it. Why, because this way everyone has a sandbox repository to
> fool around in, try things out, send them to others... do some RnD e.t.c.
> This means that rather than sending an email to the mailing list about "how
> can I contribute this" or "what is the process" or "here are some patches"
> or "can I have access to the repository" everybody can just work with their
> own repository... nice! It also means that since this is in a repository, it
> can be easily promoted/pulled into the GWT-OpenLayers baseline ready for the
> next release! via 'pull requests'.
>
> *What's the problem with GWT-OpenLayer's and Folllowing this:*
>
> The fundamental problem is that its *NOT EASY* for us to adhere to such a
> process with SourceForge's source repository administration. It's possible,
> but certainly not easy.
> -Creating a new repository for a developer involves too much manual input.
> A new member needs to send a request (email), the request needs to be
> granted, the repository needs be be manually created by an administrator via
> shell.
> -Controlling access to each repository involves too much manual input,
> SourceForge's administration web ui doesn't control who can push to each
> repository. Administrators have to ssh in and then edit the
> gwt-openlayers-USERNAME/.hg/.hgrc file to manually set repository
> permissions. Again, this takes too much manual effort.
> -Promoting code is also too manually intensive, the reason is that if an
> individual actually gets their own repository, then then push up some work
> to it. The only want that it will be push up into the baseline repository
> that we release from is by sending emails, or patches via email e.t.c and
> this is often not an intuitive or inviting process. This process is not
> intrinsic in SourceForge's source control hosting.
>
> *Addressing these Issues:*
>
> Rather than documenting, emailing and publishing a DIY process of making a
> contribution and how to work with source control, *we should target a
> hosting service where the process is intrinsic in the service it's self * :) The
> sooner we can switch the better.
>
> *CONCLUSION*
>
> Some of the developers are already using bitbucket (
> https://bitbucket.org/gwtopenlayers) for Mercurial repository hosting.
> This can work concurrently with SF's mercurial. However, we should really
> focus on bitbucket's additional features (such as forking, pull requests
> e.t.c). These features provide us with a suitable service and an easy,
> intrinsic process for contribution. Using SF and bitbucket concurrently is
> something I would not recommend either, it doesn't solve our problem.
>
> *Please vote on a move to BitBucket and decommission SF's mercurial
> repository YES/NO?*
>
> Cheers :)
>
>