repository move to github

[iulian dragos]

Hi all,

During the past few weeks we've been thinking a lot about moving the Git repository to github. Assembla's git repository suffers from several drawbacks: downtimes, clumsy web interface (including for comments/reviews), overly restrictive (no master renames, no fast-forwards -- just examples). Moving to github will gain us more visibility, allow easier forking/pull requests, reviews, and we won't be missing anything: Assembla integrates well with github, including references from commits to tickets, and integration in the project activity stream. I think that's a win-win situation. :-)

All other project assets (Wiki pages, Tickets) will stay on Assembla. We may put some very basic developer documentation on github (mainly how to build the project), but we'll keep the rest in place.

I don't think Assembla will be missed, but please let me know what you think. If no major issues arise, I'll make the move early next week, probably Tuesday in the morning (CET time). People will need to update their remote repository (origin) to point to the new github repository. We already secured the scala-ide username on github.

best,

iulian

--
« Je déteste la montagne, ça cache le paysage »
Alphonse Allais

[Matthew Farwell]

Salut,

+1.

One of the major benefits of github is the review process for pull requests. This allows you to easily review pull requests. It can include input from all of the team as well.

It's more visible, it's better because the people who contribute to other stuff (Scala documentation for example) will find it easier to contribute, people are used to github.

I have one question: With github, you have issue tracking. Is this something you can turn off? Just to avoid people raising issues in github as opposed to assembla?

Matthew.

[Grzegorz Kossakowski]

On 30 September 2011 14:10, iulian dragos <jagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

During the past few weeks we've been thinking a lot about moving the Git repository to github. Assembla's git repository suffers from several drawbacks: downtimes, clumsy web interface (including for comments/reviews), overly restrictive (no master renames, no fast-forwards -- just examples). Moving to github will gain us more visibility, allow easier forking/pull requests, reviews, and we won't be missing anything: Assembla integrates well with github, including references from commits to tickets, and integration in the project activity stream. I think that's a win-win situation. :-)

+1

I've tried to clone from asembla two days ago and got corrupted git repo. It was cloning at 10kb/s... 

--
Grzegorz Kossakowski

[iulian dragos]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Matthew Farwell <mat...@farwell.co.uk> wrote:

Salut,

+1.

One of the major benefits of github is the review process for pull requests. This allows you to easily review pull requests. It can include input from all of the team as well.

It's more visible, it's better because the people who contribute to other stuff (Scala documentation for example) will find it easier to contribute, people are used to github.

I have one question: With github, you have issue tracking. Is this something you can turn off? Just to avoid people raising issues in github as opposed to assembla?

Yes, it can be turned off. That's a very good point.

thanks,

iulian

 

Matthew.

Le 30 septembre 2011 14:10, iulian dragos <jagu...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi all,

During the past few weeks we've been thinking a lot about moving the Git repository to github. Assembla's git repository suffers from several drawbacks: downtimes, clumsy web interface (including for comments/reviews), overly restrictive (no master renames, no fast-forwards -- just examples). Moving to github will gain us more visibility, allow easier forking/pull requests, reviews, and we won't be missing anything: Assembla integrates well with github, including references from commits to tickets, and integration in the project activity stream. I think that's a win-win situation. :-)

All other project assets (Wiki pages, Tickets) will stay on Assembla. We may put some very basic developer documentation on github (mainly how to build the project), but we'll keep the rest in place.

I don't think Assembla will be missed, but please let me know what you think. If no major issues arise, I'll make the move early next week, probably Tuesday in the morning (CET time). People will need to update their remote repository (origin) to point to the new github repository. We already secured the scala-ide username on github.

best,

iulian

--
« Je déteste la montagne, ça cache le paysage »
Alphonse Allais

[Matt Russell]

On Friday, September 30, 2011 1:10:47 PM UTC+1, Iulian Dragos wrote:

During the past few weeks we've been thinking a lot about moving the Git repository to github. Assembla's git repository suffers from several drawbacks

+1. In addition,

* Github is more accessible for some people (At one point I set-up a Github Scala-IDE mirror because Jin Mingjian couldn't access Assembla correctly from China).

-- Matt

[Miles Sabin]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, iulian dragos <jagu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> During the past few weeks we've been thinking a lot about moving the Git
> repository to github. Assembla's git repository suffers from several
> drawbacks: downtimes, clumsy web interface (including for comments/reviews),
> overly restrictive (no master renames, no fast-forwards -- just examples).
> Moving to github will gain us more visibility, allow easier forking/pull
> requests, reviews, and we won't be missing anything: Assembla integrates
> well with github, including references from commits to tickets, and
> integration in the project activity stream. I think that's a win-win
> situation. :-)
> All other project assets (Wiki pages, Tickets) will stay on Assembla. We may
> put some very basic developer documentation on github (mainly how to build
> the project), but we'll keep the rest in place.

Yeah, I think this is the way to go. Assembla still wins from the
ticketing and wiki PoV, but with the benefit of hindsight I think it
would have been better to host the repos on github.

Cheers,

Miles

--
Miles Sabin
tel: +44 7813 944 528
gtalk: mi...@milessabin.com
skype: milessabin
http://www.chuusai.com/
http://twitter.com/milessabin

[ijuma]

Good idea.

Best,

Ismael

[leifw]

+1

[emolitor]

+1 for me as well. As a relatively GIT novice I've had a much better experience with github.

[David Bernard]

Iulian,

What do you mean by "We already secured the scala-ide username on github." ?

So, I image the plan to move to gerrit + jenskin is aborted ( http://alblue.bandlem.com/2011/02/gerrit-git-review-with-jenkins-ci.html )

+1

IIRC, we didn't move previously because git commit with comment like "Fix #xxx" didn't work.

/davidB

[iulian dragos]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM, David Bernard <david.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

Iulian,

What do you mean by "We already secured the scala-ide username on github." ?

It means that Mirco created a 'scala-ide' user name on github, so we can have a repository like g...@github.com:scala-ide/scala-ide.git. It's probably unlikely that someone else took that ID, but it's reassuring to know we can keep our identity :)

So, I image the plan to move to gerrit + jenskin is aborted ( http://alblue.bandlem.com/2011/02/gerrit-git-review-with-jenkins-ci.html )

Yes, I prefer to move to github for the other advantages, like visibility, pull requests workflow, etc.

 

+1

IIRC, we didn't move previously because git commit with comment like "Fix #xxx" didn't work.

This seems to be working fine for Akka, but I will try to find out more:

http://www.assembla.com/spaces/akka/tickets/1070-clean-up-channel-api

cheers,

iulian

 

/davidB

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 18:16, emolitor <mreric...@gmail.com> wrote:

+1 for me as well. As a relatively GIT novice I've had a much better experience with github.

[David Bernard]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 14:28, iulian dragos <jagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM, David Bernard <david.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

Iulian,

What do you mean by "We already secured the scala-ide username on github." ?

It means that Mirco created a 'scala-ide' user name on github, so we can have a repository like g...@github.com:scala-ide/scala-ide.git. It's probably unlikely that someone else took that ID, but it's reassuring to know we can keep our identity :)

IMHO, create an github organization should be better (allow better project right administration, user name are for individuals).

I imagined the project will moved under https://github.com/typesafehub.

/davidB

[iulian dragos]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:03 PM, David Bernard <david.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 14:28, iulian dragos <jagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM, David Bernard <david.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

Iulian,

What do you mean by "We already secured the scala-ide username on github." ?

It means that Mirco created a 'scala-ide' user name on github, so we can have a repository like g...@github.com:scala-ide/scala-ide.git. It's probably unlikely that someone else took that ID, but it's reassuring to know we can keep our identity :)

IMHO, create an github organization should be better (allow better project right administration, user name are for individuals).

It is indeed an organization account.

 

I imagined the project will moved under https://github.com/typesafehub. 

/davidB

[Miles Sabin]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM, David Bernard
<david.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I imagined the project will moved under https://github.com/typesafehub.

Why would you imagine that? Typesafe is a commercial entity whereas
the Scala IDE project is an independent open source project.

Iulian and Mirco are doing exactly the right thing IMO.

[emolitor]

Nod, very happy it is being tackled in this way and agree it's being handled correctly. I could see an argument for it to be in a scala-lang account but if it were typesafe I would see resistance from my work on continuing to contribute.

- Eric