Git repository?

[garyamort]

Is anyone maintaining an up to date repository of both the Joomla 1.5
and Joomal 1.6 subversion repositories on a Git server?

Speaking of which, now that I've played with it a bit, I see a LOT of
value of moving Joomla from subversion to Git. If it was hosted on
Github, such as, instead of the tedious patch process we have now, a
random developer who chooses to fix a bug could make their own work
copy of the code, make their changes, and when their done post an
update to the bug with the name of their repository.

Testers could automatically install the patched code and test it, or
create a patch to update.

And then the Joomla Core Team could go ahead and merge the patch
repository, maintaining all developer comments, into the mainline once
the patch has been confirmed.

This would urge all developers providing code to use version control,
since everyone would have access to an easy to create repository of
the code.

And this is coming from the guy who has been anti-git and trying to
get Mercurial or Bazaar to work with his processes for the past 6
months because Git on windows is so feature poor /in comparison/.
However, it has every basic function you need and have today with the
Joomla subversion repository, so why not go ahead and move and live
with having inferior functionality compared to our Mac and Linux
brethren than sticking with something that makes it so difficult to
attract new coders?

[dukeofgaming]

Amen to that. 

Although I think mercurial would be easier to pick up by the majority (specially windows users), bitbucket is not bad at all in comparison to github, and I'd say more straight forward to start using. In the end I don't mind using either mercurial or git as long as its a distributed VCS.

Regards,

David

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework?hl=en-GB.

[Mark Dexter]

As I understand it, there is no enthusiasm among the Joomla! Dev Coordinators for moving away from SVN.

As far as JBS goes, we have not had any difficulties that I am aware of teaching people how to work with patches. The patching process has been in place for several years and works well.

A lot of work in the latter stages of version 1.6 was done in branches and merged down to trunk. Again, as far as I know, the process worked well. Going forward with the new development process, working in SVN branches will be an integral part of the development cycle. When the new dev site comes online, anyone who has signed the JCA will be able to create a branch without needing anyone to set up any special permissions.

I am fairly new to the whole notion of version control, but I understand that, just like programming languages, IDE's, and any other dev tools, there are a differing opinions on which are the best tools. And, as with these other tools, there is probably no "right" answer for what is the best version control system.

However, I believe that the Joomla! project is committed to staying with SVN for the foreseeable future.

Thanks. Mark

[Gary Mort]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:50 PM, dukeofgaming <dukeof...@gmail.com> wrote:

Amen to that. 

Although I think mercurial would be easier to pick up by the majority (specially windows users), bitbucket is not bad at all in comparison to github, and I'd say more straight forward to start using.

Oh cool, I'll look at bitbucket.

I've been doing some work with Redmine, and one of the things I have found highly attractive about github is when I go to work with some ruby or redmine plugin someone wrote and published to github, thanks to the way the cloning process works even if the originally developer quit a year ago, I can use the networks function to find other people using it and patches for bugs which have been found, then consolidate all of them into my own copy of the code.

If I can do that on Bitbucket, I'd be more inclined towards Mercurial as it at least has good Windows clients.

[Gary Mort]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Mark Dexter <dexter...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I understand it, there is no enthusiasm among the Joomla! Dev Coordinators for moving away from SVN.

Yeah, that's why I made a 2 part question, one is extolling the virtues of the VCS I actually actively dislike the most[but is still better than subversion].

The other is trying to find out if anyone actually is already actively maintaining an alternate repository as there is no sense in duplicating work.

[dukeofgaming]

Mark, this might clear things up: http://hginit.com/00.html. 

More than the tool itself (being git, mercurial, bazaar...) its the model it uses: distributed, which amongst other things means that *you can actually use version control for yourself* (i.e. commiting, because you have a local repository) without polluting other's code, and until you are sure, you share your changes. This has huge positive impact on the way teams work and communicate, regardless on how many or big they are.

Regards,

David

[klas....@gmail.com]

Working with branches and maintaining them is PITA, especially on joomlacode setup. Sometimes ?'ve spend more time dealing with merging, timeouts and svn breaking every hour:14 ( that one is NOT a good idea) that actually coding stuff.

E.g. - when I was preparing patch to be merged back into the trunk it was totally impossible to do it via regular way with merging branch into fresh trunk copy (if not sooner it would break on h:14). Only way to accomplish this was to export branch files and overwrite files in trunk (with trunk previously freshly merged into branch and both exactly at the same revision).

At least remove that cron and create few (most needed are Europe and Asia based) svn slaves/mirrors.
Also serving publicly accessible checkouts from different server might significantly speed up things.

Regards
klas

Dne 14. jun. 2010 19:07 je Mark Dexter <dexter...@gmail.com> napisal:

[Ian MacLennan]

Are these subversion issues or Joomlacode issues?

Ian

[klas....@gmail.com]

I would say both - timeouts and cron are ofc joomlacode's, but the general pain of merging is a subversion problem - the longer it takes to code stuff in a branch and the more diverse from trunk it is, the more obvious it becomes. I'm just talking form personal experience here, but also from what I read (e.g. link that duke posted) svn is not the most appropriate support system for distributed development.

Klas

Dne 14. jun. 2010 21:57 je Ian MacLennan <ian.ma...@joomla.org> napisal:

[dukeofgaming]

That's right, its not. Linus Torvalds talks about several real world examples of why distributed version control works better for open source projects in this Google Tech Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8

Regards,

David

[Gary Mort]

My opinion is simple:

1) DVCS is better for projects such as this.

however

2) Much better is a not a reason to make core developers who have already put time and effort into the project and PROVEN their dedication and commitment learn a new type of VCS

3) If new developers want DVCS, it is a simple matter for one of us to create a subversion <--> Git/Mercurial gateway system and cron jobs and periodically pull new data

If this proves itself massively more effective, than it proves itself worth learning and migrating onto.

If no one can be bothered to setup the gateway, then there is no real need for it.

I'd RATHER someone else do the work, but if no one else has/is going to, than I will go ahead and setup a system to clone to GIT and push to Github every 15 minutes.

I looked over Bitbucket and it's not close "enough" for me to do the work on... I'd use it if someone else did it, but if I'm doing it I'll use Github.

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I agree with you. I love using Git, but far be it from me to ask someone to switch without being willing to get the hosting set up, etc...

The only issue I've run into with the SVN-Git bridge is that the patches produced by Git are not compatible with SVN. If you're committing back to your own branch on JoomlaCode, this isn't a problem. However, if you don't have commit access, you'll have a hard time sharing your patches in the tracker.

I haven't looked into Mercurial as seriously as I'd like to. Definitely wish Git was more Windows-friendly (although that doesn't affect me directly).

-Joe

[elin]

Relating to GitHub, one thing that I know a number of people are
interested in is creating packaging for Debian/Ubuntu. Github is a
really useful way to do that. If someone is interested in working on
that as a project, it would be great to let one of the development
coordinators know. It would be awesome to have that for 1.6.

Elin

[dukeofgaming]

I use both git and mercurial, on the basic level they are practically the same (git has more toys to play around though), but I would be concerned if the Joomla dev community had more windows than linux/mac devs, does anyone have any idea on what the proportions are?.

@Joseph 

If I'm not mistaken, Joomlacode already supports git, and because of git's distributed nature, Joomlacode could play along github with no problem.

@all

We can debate all day wether the project should leave svn in favor of a DVCS, however, our opinion alone won't achieve anything and some may even say "things are good how they are, why move?", even with facts on the table. I'd recommend we do the following:

- Make a pros/cons list on the switch to a DVCS

- Make a DVCS comparison according to the needs of the project and community

- Make an action plan

Perhaps we could take as an example how the Drupal project handled this very situation: http://drupal.org/community-initiatives/git

Even if we get a "no" (because I'd guess the final say is of the project's committers), I think a switch to a DVCS on the long term would be inevitable and at least we could lay something out for the future, or we could even come to a plan where svn can coexist with no problem (for example, an automated script to update an official git repository from the official svn repository).

Regards,

David

[Joseph LeBlanc]

On Jun 17, 2010, at 6:06 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:

I use both git and mercurial, on the basic level they are practically the same (git has more toys to play around though), but I would be concerned if the Joomla dev community had more windows than linux/mac devs, does anyone have any idea on what the proportions are?.

My concern isn't so much programmers as much as Bug Squad testers. But then again, I don't have any hard numbers on this. Perhaps we should do a Bug Squad survey?

@Joseph 

If I'm not mistaken, Joomlacode already supports git, and because of git's distributed nature, Joomlacode could play along github with no problem.

I see a Git plugin for GForge, but it doesn't look like it has full support: http://gforge.com/gf/project/scmgit/

And yes, we could "bridge" Joomlacode and github as Gary is suggesting. So long as people who want to test patches are willing to check out using Git, we won't have the problem with patches. However, if you try to generate a patch and post it on the tracker, you'll end up with a format that's incompatible with SVN.

@all

We can debate all day wether the project should leave svn in favor of a DVCS, however, our opinion alone won't achieve anything and some may even say "things are good how they are, why move?", even with facts on the table. I'd recommend we do the following:

- Make a pros/cons list on the switch to a DVCS

- Make a DVCS comparison according to the needs of the project and community

- Make an action plan

Perhaps we could take as an example how the Drupal project handled this very situation: http://drupal.org/community-initiatives/git

Even if we get a "no" (because I'd guess the final say is of the project's committers), I think a switch to a DVCS on the long term would be inevitable and at least we could lay something out for the future, or we could even come to a plan where svn can coexist with no problem (for example, an automated script to update an official git repository from the official svn repository).

That sounds like a reasonable way forward. Should we continue this on a people.joomla.org group perhaps?

[Ian MacLennan]

And yes, we could "bridge" Joomlacode and github as Gary is suggesting. So long as people who want to test patches are willing to check out using Git, we won't have the problem with patches. However, if you try to generate a patch and post it on the tracker, you'll end up with a format that's incompatible with SVN.

Does Eclipse recognize the format?  How about TortoiseSVN?  I ask because when I'm on Linux I always use the Linux patch command to apply patches which is completely separate from SVN, so I'm not sure what your comment means.  I would assume patch would handle it fine.  Do you have a sample for testing with Tortoise and Eclipse?

Ian

[Joseph LeBlanc]

Sorry, I meant that Git's default patch format is different from the one the "patch" command uses. Oddly, you have to go through some sort of song and dance to get patches out of Git's format and into one that "patch" will recognize. So no, frustratingly, Git uses its own patch format.

-Joe

[dukeofgaming]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Joseph LeBlanc <con...@jlleblanc.com> wrote:

My concern isn't so much programmers as much as Bug Squad testers. But then again, I don't have any hard numbers on this. Perhaps we should do a Bug Squad survey?

I think that would be the way to go, specially to know how many linux/mac and windows users there are. Who would integrate the bug changes in the end?. Perhaps another kind of survey open to the whole community would be of use.

I'll start a draft in Google Froms later.

 

I see a Git plugin for GForge, but it doesn't look like it has full support: http://gforge.com/gf/project/scmgit/

Well, I haven't actually tested it but I meant its already installed in Joomlacode, at least last time I saw.

 

And yes, we could "bridge" Joomlacode and github as Gary is suggesting. So long as people who want to test patches are willing to check out using Git, we won't have the problem with patches. However, if you try to generate a patch and post it on the tracker, you'll end up with a format that's incompatible with SVN.

I was thinking that perhaps all is needed is to have an official and updated repository at github and see how people respond, and who wants to step up to make the final integrations into the main svn branch.

I could help writing some tutorials, after all, I think this has a lot to do with the contribution process I was trying to put together a little while ago: http://docs.joomla.org/rfc.

 

That sounds like a reasonable way forward. Should we continue this on a people.joomla.org group perhaps?

Not sure, I think the Google Groups have more visibility but I could be mistaken. I could create the page at the wiki and we could get comments on both ends perhaps?.

Regards,

David

[Joseph LeBlanc]

On Jun 19, 2010, at 11:43 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:

That sounds like a reasonable way forward. Should we continue this on a people.joomla.org group perhaps?

Not sure, I think the Google Groups have more visibility but I could be mistaken. I could create the page at the wiki and we could get comments on both ends perhaps?.

In that case, yes, let's do a wiki page. I just wanted to avoid cluttering up the Framework list with a discussion about git.

[dukeofgaming]

Hi, just wanted to let you all know I've created the page at http://docs.joomla.org/Dvcs. Should we continue the discussion at the general development list?.

Regards,

David

--

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I guess I meant more along the lines of keeping the discussion off the Google Groups in case people weren't interested in Git at all. On the other hand, the subject line of this thread makes it easy to filter. 

[dukeofgaming]

Hi, sorry I get back to you guys so late, lots of work ,and I really wanted to make the wiki page simple and understandable enough to appeal; I rewrote almost the whole thing a couple of times and  even made some diagrams.

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this (http://docs.joomla.org/Dvcs) since I think the main issue here is to let clear know why this would be a smart move, and the potential problems that may occur; some stuff has been outlined in the "Why would Joomla! benefit from this" section.

I was thinking about adding some success cases with open source projects, such as Drupal. If you think of any other please let me know (or even better, add them to the wiki page =]).

Regards,

David

[Mark Dexter]

Hi David. I'm a bit foggy on this. How is this different than creating
a branch with SVN? Thanks. Mark

[Andrew Eddie]

David

Interesting stuff. My first impression before going into the pros and
cons on various systems is actually establishing what we are comparing
to. First I'd be establishing the requirements for what we actually
need. Then you can do up a decision matrix and see what comes out in
the wash. For example, the advanced tools in Git will mean nothing if
it doesn't support a platform we require to be available to the JBS.

Also the needs of the core repo and that of options for creating
branches are two separate issues (the latter is obviously far more
flexible).

Those are just my initial thoughts anyway.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer

[dukeofgaming]

@Mark

There are two sides to this:

When a branch is created it only lives in the repository where it was created, so for example, in your local repository you can have a maintenance branch and an experimental-feature-123 branch, and no one else knows about this branch unless you want to share ("push") it.

When merging, there are inherently much less conflicts thanks to the extra metadata that DVCS gather. Take for instance this quote from hginit.com (http://hginit.com/top/00.html):

--

Want to know something funny? Almost every Subversion team I’ve spoken to has told me some variation on the very same story. This story is so common I should just name it “Subversion Story #1.” The story is this: at some point, they tried to branch their code, usually so that the shipping version which they gave their customers can be branched off separately from the version that the developers are playing with. And every team has told me that when they tried this, it worked fine, until they had to merge, and then it was a nightmare. What should have been a five minute process ended up with six programmers around a single computer working for two weeks trying to manually reapply every single bug fix from the stable build back into the development build.

And almost every Subversion team told me that they vowed “never again,” and they swore off branches. And now what they do is this: each new feature is in a big #ifdef block. So they can work in one single trunk, while customers never see the new code until it’s debugged, and frankly, that’s ridiculous.

Keeping stable and dev code separate is precisely what source code control is supposed to let you do.

When you switch to Mercurial, you may not even realize it, but branching becomes possible again, and you don’t have to be afraid.

That means you can have team repositories, where a small team of programmers collaborates on a new feature, and when they’re done, they merge it into the main development repository, and it works!

That means you can have a QA repository that lets the QA team try out the code. If it works, the QA team can push it up to the central repository, meaning, the central repository always has solid, tested code. And it works!

That means you can run experiments in separate repositories, and if they work, you can merge them into the main repository, and if they don’t work, you can abandon them, and it works!

--

@Andrew

 For example, the advanced tools in Git will mean nothing if
it doesn't support a platform we require to be available to the JBS.

This is exactly, for example, why I would go for mercurial instead of git. However, all platforms are supported, just that with git and Windows stuff gets a little complicated.

Regarding the comparison matrix I agree, so two factors I can think of are:

• Windows support
• 3rd party hosting sites

Any more ideas?.

Regards,

David

[Andrew Eddie]

Hi David

For what it's worth, I'm *very* keen to look at Mercurial.

Off the top of my head, things that we "need" to look at for the
source tree are:

* Availability of Window GUI (eg, similar to Tortoise)
* Command line binaries for OSX
* Command line binaries for the usual linux suspects
* Plugins for Eclipse mandatory; plugins for Netbeans and Zend Studio
highly desirable.
* Patching procedures no harder (preferably easier) than SVN
* Resources required are no harder to set up than we have now for SVN

When you go past the source tree and into the collaborative
development area of the project, I'd have no qualms about looking at
supporting 3 branching repos: SVN, Mercurial and Git for those that
want to work in those spaces providing we have people with expertise
to support them and help contributors, and we have good
bridges/procedures (I'm not sure what the right terminology is here)
to get the goods back to the source tree. We should certainly let
people innovate on the system that they are most comfortable with.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer

[dukeofgaming]

Hi Andrew,

Answering inline:

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Andrew Eddie <mamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi David

For what it's worth, I'm *very* keen to look at Mercurial.

Off the top of my head, things that we "need" to look at for the
source tree are:

* Availability of Window GUI (eg, similar to Tortoise)

Why not Tortoise itself? =P

http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/ =), ("Gnome/Nautilus integration, Mac OS X port is in progress"), there is also Tortoise git (http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/)

 

* Command line binaries for OSX
* Command line binaries for the usual linux suspects

Here is everything you need for MacOS X, WIndows and Linux: 

http://mercurial.selenic.com/downloads/

 

For git, http://git-scm.com/download, however, the windows release is not official AFAIK, but it is well maintained.

* Plugins for Eclipse mandatory; plugins for Netbeans and Zend Studio
highly desirable.

Here is the Eclipse plugin: http://www.javaforge.com/project/HGE

The Netbeans plugin comes with the Netbeans installation, as they use mercurial for the IDE development itself.

Regarding git, here is the eclipse plugin: http://www.eclipse.org/egit/, The netbeans plugin is here: http://nbgit.org/.

 

* Patching procedures no harder (preferably easier) than SVN

They are, patches are not actually needed, just pull from your peer's repository, if you don't like the changes just revert the local. However, patches are supported.

In Mercurial, here is how its done:

http://shampavman.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/mercurial-patches-how-to/

http://davidherron.com/blog/topics/972-using-mercurial-patch-queues (More detailed...)

http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MqExtension (official reference, see point 7 and 8 for clear examples of the commands)

In git: http://ariejan.net/2009/10/26/how-to-create-and-apply-a-patch-with-git/

 

* Resources required are no harder to set up than we have now for SVN

For mercurial, the place to go is http://bitbucket.org/. Just sign up and just wait for others to fork the project.

For git, the place to go is https://github.com/. Same drill.

When you go past the source tree and into the collaborative
development area of the project, I'd have no qualms about looking at
supporting 3 branching repos: SVN, Mercurial and Git for those that
want to work in those spaces providing we have people with expertise
to support them and help contributors, and we have good
bridges/procedures (I'm not sure what the right terminology is here)
to get the goods back to the source tree.  We should certainly let
people innovate on the system that they are most comfortable with.

Here is where git would stand out, not because of git itself, but because of github, see, you can use mercurial and svn to commit directly to github.

http://hg-git.github.com/ (experimental)

http://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support (experimental)

In the end, my personal opinion regarding git for Joomla is that, it would be nice to support Git only because of github (and its certainly worthwhile)... however, for the SCM tool itself, I find Mercurial a better option as it is more straight forward to install and start using.

I'm not familiar with Bazaar at all, all I know is that it is the other prominent DVCS aside from hg and git.

Regards,

David

[Andrew Eddie]

Hi David.

Thanks for that - that's an awesome link resource. My present
understanding of things is both Git and Mercurial would be better than
SVN, but for the master source tree, Mercurial is probably as you say
a better fit (or a lower common denominator if you like).

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer

[dukeofgaming]

Hi Andrew,

That is correct, either Git or Mercurial are better than SVN, I guess that any distributed SCM should be specially better than any centralized SCM when it comes to big projects (any important open source project). As for the master repository I think mercurial would be the best pick, but I think it would really depend on how many Windows users we have in the JBS as Joseph pointed out earlier.

Regards,

David

P.S. I started the comparison matrix in the wiki page

[Andrew Eddie]

Good stuff. Do you want to add all those links in the previous
messages and put them under the respective headings (binaries, Eclipse
plugins, etc)?

I think regarding Windows users there will always be "enough" to have
to support that at a central project level.

Don't suppose you can make it to San Jose in October?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://www.theartofjoomla.com - the art of becoming a Joomla developer

[klas berlič]

While developers are generally more "geeky" and can find their way around (al the way down to virtual server with another OS in it) we must make sure that basic tools for testing are as much as possible click-and-play friendly and available in windows and osx.

If that is wort anything - any larger or new project I open lately, they all are on or moving to Git.

regards
Klas

2010/8/12 Andrew Eddie <mamb...@gmail.com>

[dukeofgaming]

@Andrew

Sure, no problem with the links. Sorry, don't think I can make it =/.

@Klas

Yup, totally. I wanted to start contributing some stuff into the Mootools Forge and found my way around Git in windows in few time - was a little painful though, but nothing that a tutorial can't fix, and github is reaaaally nice. 

OTOH, I was up and running with mercurial in under 10 minutes with bitbucket the first time I used it and no alternate console (bash) or any other stuff needed, and what I like about bitbucket is that both the changeset graph and all the information are displayed together.

Guess it will be an interesting comparison matrix. Do you guys think bazaar should also be considered?, I was only trying to give it a fair chance, lol.

Regards,

David

2010/8/12 klas berlič <klas....@gmail.com>

[dukeofgaming]

Ok, links are up in the wiki and I added the "Where to start" and "Public Repository Hosting" sections. I removed bazaar for now.

Regards,

David

[Niels Braczek]

dukeofgaming schrieb:

> That is correct, either Git or Mercurial are better than SVN, I guess that
> any distributed SCM should be specially better than any centralized SCM when
> it comes to big projects (any important open source project).

FullACK.

> As for the
> master repository I think mercurial would be the best pick, but I think it
> would really depend on how many Windows users we have in the JBS as Joseph
> pointed out earlier.

Since git is supported by Eclipse and NetBeans, which both are platform
independent, will that not be sufficient Windows support?

Wondering
Niels

--
| http://www.kolleg.de · Das Portal der Kollegs in Deutschland |
| http://www.bsds.de · BSDS Braczek Software- und DatenSysteme |
| Webdesign · Webhosting · e-Commerce · Joomla! Content Management |
------------------------------------------------------------------

[dukeofgaming]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Niels Braczek <nbra...@bsds.de> wrote:

Since git is supported by Eclipse and NetBeans, which both are platform

independent, will that not be sufficient Windows support?

I'd guess there would be more to it, for example JoomlaCode. There is a git plugin for GForge that I think is stable, but then again, sites like bitbucket and github are the true bearers of traction.

So, what would we need to move this forward?.

Regards,

David

[Sam Moffatt]

The current release of JoomlaCode has GIT support however if we were
to consider shifting that way we'd need to convert all of the
releases, branches and history in a uniform GIT repository so that we
don't lose anything. The JC SVN repository also has more than just the
development tree, there are other trees there as well.

Any plan to move to an alternative (D)SCM would have to include a
migration strategy that included these items as well.

Cheers,

Sam Moffatt
http://pasamio.id.au

[Gary Mort]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Sam Moffatt <pas...@gmail.com> wrote:

The current release of JoomlaCode has GIT support however if we were
to consider shifting that way we'd need to convert all of the
releases, branches and history in a uniform GIT repository so that we
don't lose anything. The JC SVN repository also has more than just the
development tree, there are other trees there as well.

Basic conversion is fairly straightforward, I was only concerned about the development tree so that is all I did here

http://github.com/garyamort/Joomla-1.6-Master-Hub

 If I felt like take the time, the conversion routine even has scripts so you can make mappings between SVN users and Git users[so, for example, if I knew every SVN committer's GitHub userid, I could have mapped them over.  If you browse through the commit history on Github, http://github.com/garyamort/Joomla-1.6-Master-Hub/commits/master you will see some of those commits actually map to existing Github users who happen to have the same Github username as one of the Joomla SVN committers.

I do recall there being a problem with some of the branches in conversion having invalid charector, but my recollection is that was all from 1.0/mambo branches.

Oh, there is also TWO additional benefits to using a DCS such as Git.

One "on behalf of commits"....instead of a commit being made by a specific user[for example, browse through the commit history and only a handful of developers get credit for the work of hundreds of other developers because they were the ones to commit them].  Instead, your central repository committers can commit patches "on behalf of" the developer...so developers get credit for their work in the history.

In addition, if you allow all developers to clone/branch their versions, you don't even have to do an "on behalf of" commit, the central committers can simply pull the patch directly from actual coders repository[assuming no changes are needed].

BTW, my own analysis has led me to use the following:

I use git as my primary SERVER DCVS because it has better merge tracking capabilities and is more popular.

I use mercurial as my LOCAL dcvs because it has better windows support.  Mercurial will easily pull/push code from a Git server, so there is no need for me to limit myself to the DCVS with the better windows client, I can use both where they are appropriate.

[garyamort]

On Aug 12, 12:57 pm, Niels Braczek <nbrac...@bsds.de> wrote:
> dukeofgaming schrieb:

>
>
> > As for the
> > master repository I think mercurial would be the best pick, but I think it
> > would really depend on how many Windows users we have in the JBS as Joseph
> > pointed out earlier.
>
> Since git is supported by Eclipse and NetBeans, which both are platform
> independent, will that not be sufficient Windows support?
>
>

No, the issue is not "support"...it's a functional set of server code.

The basic premise of a DCVS is the D part, Decentralized. This means
I don't have a central server I work against, but rather I clone the
central repository onto my local system and then work from there, only
pushing branches and code to the central server when I have something
worth sharing.

The problem is that Git was developed by Linus specifically for
managing the Linux project, which runs on Linux. So he used a number
of file management tricks that work very very fast on Linux for
managing many files. These same features work very very SLOWLY on
Windows, so committing changes to your local Git repository can take
ages at times.

The GUI client support is there, there is a TortoiseGit project and
everything. It's the server stuff that craps out on windows and makes
it infeasible.

[Niels Braczek]

garyamort schrieb:

> On Aug 12, 12:57 pm, Niels Braczek <nbrac...@bsds.de> wrote:

>> Since git is supported by Eclipse and NetBeans, which both are platform
>> independent, will that not be sufficient Windows support?

> The GUI client support is there, there is a TortoiseGit project and

> everything. It's the server stuff that craps out on windows and makes
> it infeasible.

Ah, I see - thank you for your explanation!

Regards,
Niels

[Joseph LeBlanc]

Ok, as a non-Windows Git user, this clears up some questions in my mind. So if you can use Mercurial as your client on Windows to talk to a Git server elsewhere, I'd strongly suggest we move to Git for the central repository rather than Mercurial.

-Joe

On Aug 17, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Gary Mort wrote:

> BTW, my own analysis has led me to use the following:
> I use git as my primary SERVER DCVS because it has better merge tracking capabilities and is more popular.
>
> I use mercurial as my LOCAL dcvs because it has better windows support. Mercurial will easily pull/push code from a Git server, so there is no need for me to limit myself to the DCVS with the better windows client, I can use both where they are appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>

[Niels Braczek]

Joseph LeBlanc schrieb:

> Ok, as a non-Windows Git user, this clears up some questions in my
> mind. So if you can use Mercurial as your client on Windows to talk
> to a Git server elsewhere, I'd strongly suggest we move to Git for
> the central repository rather than Mercurial.

+1

Regards,
Niels

[dukeofgaming]

So then, can we say that we can support both DVCSs and there is no need to decide?, I think that would be rather nice, with the right documentation/tutorials we can integrate both user bases (git and mercurial) with ease. Furthermore, those unfamiliar with DVCSs or Windows users can use mercurial, then move to git if they really want/need the extra toys. 

I think this would lower the barrier even more, as opposed to supporting only git or only mercurial.  

Regards,

David

[Joseph LeBlanc]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We could host the central repository in Git, then people would clone a local copy using Mercurial, Git, or any other DVCS that can connect to Git repositories.

-Joe

[dukeofgaming]

Well, sounds like a sound plan. I'll update the wiki entry and get back to you.

What's the next step?, who needs to get involved to make progress with this?.

Regards,

David

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I think the next step would be to pass this by the PLT. They'll be meeting at Joomla! Day West; I'm trying to find the link for that suggestion box (if it's still open).

-Joe

[dukeofgaming]

Hi again,

I was making some changes in the wiki and started to think about logistics. I think some of the main issues would be:

- There would be a main git repository... will it be in github or joomlacode?. 

- Will other coding sites be supported?, I think at least github and bitbucket would be indispensable. Which means: there should be an official repository for each site, and someone should be integrating changes into the main server. In the end this would mean collaboration will be much more diverse and it is what DVCSs are suited for, so the complexity is not as serious as it looks and this situation is desirable.

I think the optimal setup would be the main repository to be in joomlacode, pulling/being-pushed-to from github and bitbucket.

Any thoughts on this?.

Regards,

David

[Niels Braczek]

dukeofgaming schrieb:

> I think the optimal setup would be the main repository to be in joomlacode,
> pulling/being-pushed-to from github and bitbucket.

Sounds very reasonable to me, provided, that the synchronization will be
transparent for the users of the respective repository.
+1

Regards,

[dukeofgaming]

That would be idea =, the real challenge though, is in communication. For example, what would happen with the JBS?, I'm not really familiar with how they work.

Regards,

David

--

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I think that keeping a repository over at GitHub and one over at JoomlaCode would be very confusing actually. As nice as GitHub is, I would vote to keep the central repository at JoomlaCode. If people want to use GitHub, they still can, but they'll be responsible for synching their repos up with JoomlaCode.

-Joe

[dukeofgaming]

What about forking and pull requests?, that is a sweet feature that really eases the confusion and facilitates communication for both parts. Also, perhaps having a well defined and documented set of steps to contribute/integrate would eliminate any confusion, I think. Otherwise, pull requests would need to be through email/lists & tracker, which is not necessarily bad and could provide transparency, but in the end could be more time consuming and kind of unnecessary.

Regards,

David

[Paladin]

Several quick hits (yes, it's good to be back, long story, etc).

Quite some time ago I volunteered to set up a github version and to co-
ordinate pull requests from there into the main tree, in the context
of creating unit tests. It isn't that hard.

git can be used locally on your dev machine, and can post changes into
an svn repo, if desired.

Integration of git with Eclipse is very good. Integration with
NetBeans is primitive, to be kind. (And I prefer NetBeans to Eclipse.)
You're better off using the command line than nbgit. Luckily, the cli
git interface is simple.

There are several tools (some come from Tortise) that wrap git in a
gui.

You can maintain a lot of the same style as currently in svn by
letting each dev have a git fork on the server, with a central admin
pulling changes from those repos into the "main" repo.

I already have a git repo of the joomla codebase, going back 4+ years.
Starts with svn rev around 2200 or so (I think that's in 1.0.3) with
the last rev in the 17000's, but getting the rest wouldn't be hard.

In short, I could give everyone a quick bit on setting up a local git
repo, stocking it from the current tree (believe me, you'll want only
one of the latest revs to start your repo with, easier on everyone,
and there's a cute bug in the joomlacode svn process that'll bite you
if you go for more) and setting up patches t push back upstream. The
process could start with the devs that are so inclined working in git
locally, without bothering the rest of the devs.

You're creating an amount of extra work this way, in making sure
things are sync'ed, but it has the benefit of letting people start
working in git now without forcing folks who like svn to learn a new
system. And you'll have many of the same sync issues anyway, for
people who develop in a branch and then get merged into main.

Just my $0.02US. I can work in any SCM, I just prefer git to any
others. (Never caught the Hg bug, maybe need to see wider circs than
just the projects I work on.)

[dukeofgaming]

Hi Paladin, welcome back.

I use Netbeans too, perhaps that makes it worth enough (ftr, I also use CLI & tortoise). I have added some ideas for tutorials, I'll start writing as soon as I have time. 

About the repos, I guess I'd then volunteer for helping out to sync a bitbucket one. Who else would be willing to get involved some way?.

Regards,

David

--

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I've had problems using the SVN-Git bridge in conjunction with the current JBS workflow. Unfortunately, it seems like the patches generated by Git are incompatible with the typical UNIX patch command. I tried using Git a while back on the Joomla SVN,  generated a patch, then tried applying it to my SVN copy and couldn't do so. This would make it difficult for people to use git-svn without commit access on JoomlaCode.

-Joe

[Niels Braczek]

Joseph LeBlanc schrieb:

> Unfortunately, it seems like the patches
> generated by Git are incompatible with the typical UNIX patch
> command.

Is there any reason, why you don't create the patch from the IDE?
NetBeans does support that...

Regards,
Niels

[Israel D. Canasa]

If ever Joomla will move to Git, please please please just use Github.
It has all the features that are great for collaboration. This way,
contributing to Joomla will be far easier.

-Israel

On Sep 1, 6:24 am, dukeofgaming <dukeofgam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about forking and pull requests?, that is a sweet feature that really
> eases the confusion and facilitates communication for both parts. Also,
> perhaps having a well defined and documented set of steps to
> contribute/integrate would eliminate any confusion, I think. Otherwise, pull
> requests would need to be through email/lists & tracker, which is
> not necessarily bad and could provide transparency, but in the end could be
> more time consuming and kind of unnecessary.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Joseph LeBlanc <cont...@jlleblanc.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think that keeping a repository over at GitHub and one over at JoomlaCode
> > would be very confusing actually. As nice as GitHub is, I would vote to keep
> > the central repository at JoomlaCode. If people want to use GitHub, they
> > still can, but they'll be responsible for synching their repos up with
> > JoomlaCode.
>
> > -Joe
>
> > On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:55 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
> > That would be idea =, the real challenge though, is in communication. For
> > example, what would happen with the JBS?, I'm not really familiar with how
> > they work.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > David
>

> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Niels Braczek <nbrac...@bsds.de> wrote:
>
> >> dukeofgaming schrieb:
>
> >> > I think the optimal setup would be the main repository to be in
> >> joomlacode,
> >> > pulling/being-pushed-to from github and bitbucket.
>
> >> Sounds very reasonable to me, provided, that the synchronization will be
> >> transparent for the users of the respective repository.
> >> +1
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Niels
>
> >> --
> >> |http://www.kolleg.de  ·   Das Portal der Kollegs in Deutschland |
> >> |http://www.bsds.de  ·   BSDS Braczek Software- und DatenSysteme |
> >> | Webdesign · Webhosting · e-Commerce · Joomla! Content Management |
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> >> To post to this group, send an email to
> >> joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com<joomla-dev-framework%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .

> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework?hl=en-GB.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to
> > joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework?hl=en-GB.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to
> > joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com<joomla-dev-framework%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Joseph LeBlanc]

I'm using TextMate for all of my development. The Git bundle doesn't seem to have any command that generates patches. For both SVN and Git, I typically generate patches through the command line client as I find it much faster.

Have you tried generating a patch from a diff of a Git repository in NetBeans, then applying that patch elsewhere? I'd assume that NetBeans and Eclipse would still have to implement some sort of logic to convert the diff from Git into one that's compatible with what the rest of the UNIX world uses.

-Joe

[Niels Braczek]

Joseph LeBlanc schrieb:

> Have you tried generating a patch from a diff of a Git repository in NetBeans, then applying that patch elsewhere? I'd assume that NetBeans and Eclipse would still have to implement some sort of logic to convert the diff from Git into one that's compatible with what the rest of the UNIX world uses.

AFAIK NetBeans (and Eclipse) (can be configured to) use the external
diff command. Can't check this currently.

Regards,
Niels

[Joseph LeBlanc]

My concern is more about what format the patches are generated in, more than anything. I simply use 'git diff' or 'svn diff' on the command line to generate patches. However, 'git diff' generates patches that are not in the same format as 'svn diff'.

-Joe

[Paladin]

Yep. Here's one thread which explains the problem:

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2008/1/15/570308/thread#mid-570308

and one which purports to be a solution:

http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@trafficserver.apache.org/msg00864.html

Maybe that script will help.

[Niels Braczek]

Paladin schrieb:

> and one which purports to be a solution:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@trafficserver.apache.org/msg00864.html

This is the original source:

http://mojodna.net/2009/02/24/my-work-git-workflow.html

Regards,
Niels

[dukeofgaming]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to share a response I gave at StackExchange to someone asking why "a Subversion geek should consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS?". Looks I was clear enough, so it might help to give some continuity to this "old" thread:

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/35074/im-a-subversion-geek-why-i-should-consider-or-not-consider-mercurial-or-git-or

Regards,

David

[Mark Dexter]

Hi. One new development along these lines is that the platform project plans to use Mercurial for their SVN from the beginning. I think the idea is to try Mercurial there and, if it works well, then eventually switch Joomla over to Mercurial as well (although no time frame has been discussed for this). Mark

[dukeofgaming]

Hi Mark,

Just to ask if there is a repository set already, if not, just to
suggest using bitbucket (https://bitbucket.org/) for it. Also, I'm
adding this development to the wiki page:

http://docs.joomla.org/Dvcs#Action_Plan

Regards,

David

On Jan 31, 10:19 am, Mark Dexter <dextercow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. One new development along these lines is that the platform project plans
> to use Mercurial for their SVN from the beginning. I think the idea is to
> try Mercurial there and, if it works well, then eventually switch Joomla
> over to Mercurial as well (although no time frame has been discussed for
> this). Mark
>

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:22 AM, dukeofgaming <dukeofgam...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey guys,
>
> > Just wanted to share a response I gave at StackExchange to someone asking
> > why "a Subversion geek should consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or
> > any other DVCS?". Looks I was clear enough, so it might help to give some
> > continuity to this "old" thread:
>

> >http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/35074/im-a-subversion-...
>
> > <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/35074/im-a-subversion-...>
> > Regards,
>
> > David

>
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Niels Braczek <nbrac...@bsds.de> wrote:
>
> >> Paladin schrieb:
>
> >> > and one which purports to be a solution:

> >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/...@trafficserver.apache.org/msg00864.html

>
> >> This is the original source:
>
> >>http://mojodna.net/2009/02/24/my-work-git-workflow.html
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Niels
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> >> To post to this group, send an email to
> >> joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com<joomla-dev-framework%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .

> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework?hl=en-GB.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to
> > joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com<joomla-dev-framework%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Mark Dexter]

Hi David. That's a great coincidence. Recently, Louis suggested and the PLT agreed to use bitbucket & mercurial for the new platform repository. So the platform project will use mercurial/bitbucket instead of svn/joomlacode from the start. This is expected to be set up and working on or before April 15.

The plan is to use mercurial for a period of time with the platform project. If it works out well (which we hope and expect), then we would consider changing the CMS project over to the same repository.

I'm not exactly sure the time frame for changing Joomla to mercurial. Perhaps run the platform project for 6 months or so and then evaluate? Not sure.

In the meantime, I'm also not sure the best way to proceed on the idea of a bitbucket/mercurial "mirror". If there is a way to set this up soon without a huge amount of work, I think it would be most interesting to try. I'm not sure about the mechanics. The Joomlacode SVN would continue to be the "real" repo for the cms in the meantime, but having the bitbucket as an option would be valuable to help with the long-term transition.

Anyway, that's where things stand. Louis, Sam, Ian: Any other thoughts about this?

Thanks. Mark

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Dexter]

Hi David. That's a great coincidence. Recently, Louis suggested and the PLT agreed to use bitbucket & mercurial for the new platform repository. So the platform project will use mercurial/bitbucket instead of svn/joomlacode from the start. This is expected to be set up and working on or before April 15.

The plan is to use mercurial for a period of time with the platform project. If it works out well (which we hope and expect), then we would consider changing the CMS project over to the same repository.

I'm not exactly sure the time frame for changing Joomla to mercurial. Perhaps run the platform project for 6 months or so and then evaluate? Not sure.

In the meantime, I'm also not sure the best way to proceed on the idea of a bitbucket/mercurial "mirror". If there is a way to set this up soon without a huge amount of work, I think it would be most interesting to try. I'm not sure about the mechanics. The Joomlacode SVN would continue to be the "real" repo for the cms in the meantime, but having the bitbucket as an option would be valuable to help with the long-term transition.

Anyway, that's where things stand. Louis, Sam, Ian: Any other thoughts about this?

Thanks. Mark

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:20 AM, dukeofgaming <dukeof...@gmail.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com.

[Amy Stephen]

Mark -

Will there be an announcement for the use of BitBucket with the Platform Repository work?

Is this the link where development will take place?

http://bitbucket.org/joomla/joomla-platform

Also, is the plan to release the framework separately as part of 1.7? Or, will there be a separate release cycle? Any details on what the framework might entail and the type of help the community might provide?

It's good to see this moving forward.

Thanks!
Amy

On Monday, February 21, 2011 9:47:19 AM UTC-6, Mark Dexter wrote:

Hi David. That's a great coincidence. Recently, Louis suggested and the PLT agreed to use bitbucket & mercurial for the new platform repository. So the platform project will use mercurial/bitbucket instead of svn/joomlacode from the start. This is expected to be set up and working on or before April 15.

The plan is to use mercurial for a period of time with the platform project. If it works out well (which we hope and expect), then we would consider changing the CMS project over to the same repository.

I'm not exactly sure the time frame for changing Joomla to mercurial. Perhaps run the platform project for 6 months or so and then evaluate? Not sure.

In the meantime, I'm also not sure the best way to proceed on the idea of a bitbucket/mercurial "mirror". If there is a way to set this up soon without a huge amount of work, I think it would be most interesting to try. I'm not sure about the mechanics. The Joomlacode SVN would continue to be the "real" repo for the cms in the meantime, but having the bitbucket as an option would be valuable to help with the long-term transition.

Anyway, that's where things stand. Louis, Sam, Ian: Any other thoughts about this?

Thanks. Mark

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:20 AM, dukeofgaming <dukeof...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Just to ask if there is a repository set already, if not, just to
suggest using bitbucket (https://bitbucket.org/) for it. Also, I'm
adding this development to the wiki page:

http://docs.joomla.org/Dvcs#Action_Plan

Regards,

David

[Mark Dexter]

Hi Michael. If you have some useful information for the Joomla community regarding using Mercurial, the Wiki would probably be the place to post it. (docs.joomla.org). There is already information about using SVN, so Mercurial information as well could be very helpful. Let me know if you need any help getting started on this. Thanks. Mark

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hamanaka <hama...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have been working for a month (maybe some wheel spinning) on a Mercurial extension that will help with the database, we are trying to use Fog Creek's Kiln for multiple-person php development on locals and to track changes, discrepencies, etc. especially, when it comes to doing work on a live website (from local) and not losing live changes.  (and for documentation, time tracking, etc.)   I'm not sure if what we have been working on is helpful or even relevant to the bigger picture of Joomla core development...  I suppose that we could help with posting some documentation, where would be a good place for my team to share some of our ideas and learn from other people's progress on using Mercurial for Joomla?

Mike Hamanaka

Website Production 

Vertualize.com

Office:  310-564-6444

[Mark Dexter]

@Amy: I haven't been working on this directly, so probably best for others to answer your questions. I believe that is the URL and I think the target for the first platform release is April 15. I think Joomla 1.7 will hopefully use this version of the library. But all of this is still preliminary, I believe. Mark

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Hamanaka]

We have been working for a month (maybe some wheel spinning) on a Mercurial extension that will help with the database, we are trying to use Fog Creek's Kiln for multiple-person php development on locals and to track changes, discrepencies, etc. especially, when it comes to doing work on a live website (from local) and not losing live changes.  (and for documentation, time tracking, etc.)   I'm not sure if what we have been working on is helpful or even relevant to the bigger picture of Joomla core development...  I suppose that we could help with posting some documentation, where would be a good place for my team to share some of our ideas and learn from other people's progress on using Mercurial for Joomla?

Mike Hamanaka

Website Production 

Vertualize.com

Office:  310-564-6444

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Amy Stephen]

Thank you, Mark. April 15th is very soon.

I understand a new Communications Team has been formed and that Ron Severdia represents the PLT on that team. Hopefully, once the team has time to get organized, a brief message will be shared with a few of these important details.

In addition to the location of the official repository, I am interested in hearing what license will be used. (I'm hoping LGPL but not certain if that is possible, or not.)

Someone raised a question as to whether or not this repository and the contributions to the framework are covered by the existing contributor agreement. Apparently, there is language in the agreement that ties the agreement to work shared on JoomlaCode.

I guess that leads to another question as to whether or not the framework will be distributed at Joomla.org and if it also fall under the purview of OSM?

Finally, will there be ways for the community to participate? (Patches, testing, etc.) and how to do get ready for and involved with that?

I know others will have questions, too.

I realize questions of that nature to folks who understand what's going on might seem ridiculous but change is just something that just takes time and information to process. No big deal.

I blind-copied Ron on this note in hopes that he might address some of these questions in his role as the one responsible for PLT communications.

Thanks.
Amy

[elin]

I  understand what would make someone think otherwise, but the JCA is not related to any specific repository, domain, or version management software.  

Anyone who has signed the JCA  can always write to the address provided on the agreement (le...@joomla.org) to ask legal questions.  

ref: http://developer.joomla.org/contributor-agreements/327-jca-individuals.html

Elin

[elin]

I mean I CAN'T understand what woudl make someone thing otherwise.

ELin

[Andrew Eddie]

Can I suggest when asking questions, you keep it tight - the topic is
about the "bitbucket" repo, no? The "framework list" isn't the place
to be second guess the role of the comm's team (which my understanding
is they haven't even worked our themselves) as an example. It would
be better to ask organisational questions on the forum somewhere.

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

[DANG KHOA PHAM]

No Thank.

[Amy Stephen]

Hi Andrew -

Well, sort of, I created a new topic with several questions related to platform project, and yes, one of my questions was "where?"

Please forgive me if it sounded like I was "second guessing" the role of the new comm team. I am not. I was trying to graciously acknowledge Mark's response that he was not the right person. I can see that it was a mistake for me to presume the comm team's involvement, but it was not ill intended. My apologizes for that presumption.

If you could help guide me, are these questions appropriate for this list? If not, would you kindly advise a better location?

- Where is the development effort for the Joomla! framework taking place?  Is the work taking place at http://bitbucket.org/joomla/joomla-platform ?

- Does the CLA cover the platform project?

- Will the framework be distributed at joomla.org?

- Is there documentation that defines "what the framework is?" In other words, how it's being separated from the CMS? (Is it just the joomla! libraries folder? or more?) (If there is no documentation, that's fine, but if there is it would be excellent reading).

- How can community participate? (Can we share bug reports and patches? For example, JForm improvements. If so, where and how? Or, is involvement planned for a later point in time after the framework is separated?)

- What license will be used for the framework? (In the past there was a lot of talk about possibility using the LGPL but I don't believe a final answer has been shared.)

Again, I apologize for my poor wording. I will re-post misplaced questions if you would please advise which questions would be better placed somewhere else (and where, please, too). Please do not assume negativity. Many of those questions can probably be answered with a "Yes." or "No" and that will be helpful. There is simply a lack of information and a great deal of interest in this exciting phase.

Thank you for your patience and of course massive contributions to Joomla.
Amy

[Andrew Eddie]

On 26 February 2011 01:13, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Where is the development effort for the Joomla! framework taking place?
> Is the work taking place at http://bitbucket.org/joomla/joomla-platform ?

Well, technically the effort happens anywhere and any improvements to
the framework are still under the auspice of the ideas forum and
Joomla feature tracker. I think it's been previously mentioned that a
few of us are experimenting with distributed version control
technologies. There have been quite a few discussions about which
technology to use but the consensus seems to be to start with
Mercurial because it is the most convenient for Windows users. To
that end, trials are being set up on Bitbucket. I can only speak for
myself, but so far it looks promising but I have not tooled up on it
sufficiently to give any authoritative guidance beyond "it looks like
this way might have legs". I'm impressed enough to start moving my
client work to Bitbucket to help me learn the system better.

> - Does the CLA cover the platform project?

I can only speak for myself but I signed the CLA to cover my
contributions to the Joomla project, not what technology my
contributions are committed to.

> - Will the framework be distributed at joomla.org?

I can't think of a reason it would not be, at least initially.
Though, speaking for myself, developer.joomla.org may be an
appropriate long term home for it. Don't really know, and to be honest
I don't really care, but I'm sure wherever the download point is, it
will make sense.

> - Is there documentation that defines "what the framework is?" In other
> words, how it's being separated from the CMS? (Is it just the joomla!
> libraries folder? or more?) (If there is no documentation, that's fine, but
> if there is it would be excellent reading).

The framework is everything under /libraries/ and the goal of any
framework effort would be to progressively decouple as much as
possible from the "CMS". Obviously any first steps need to be
"gently, gently". I could also see the CMS "adding" additional
libraries for it's own purposes that are coupled to supporting CMS
"stuff" but not really appropriate in the core framework.

> - How can community participate? (Can we share bug reports and patches? For
> example, JForm improvements. If so, where and how? Or, is involvement
> planned for a later point in time after the framework is separated?)

As I said before, contributing to Joomla is not dependant on the
technology we use for source management. I believe I and others have
explained in depth the process of how contribution works via the ideas
forum, these mailing lists and the Joomla feature tracker. Mercurial
is just a "tool" that makes it easier for people to manage their
efforts, and would form the point of truth for at least the framework
as I understand it. There is nothing precluding anyone from forking
(that's DSCM speak) their own framework or CMS repo using Git, Bzr or
even SVN on Joomlacode. All that's happening is a different SCM is
being looked at for the framework project (and if that works, maybe
the CMS will shift as well in the long term) - it doesn't change the
systems already set up for contributing (just the final destination
for committing accepted work). At least, that's the way I see it.

> - What license will be used for the framework? (In the past there was a lot
> of talk about possibility using the LGPL but I don't believe a final answer
> has been shared.)

I don't believe a final answer exists to that question other than the
CLA would allow the project to choose the LGPL in the future if it so
desires, which is ok with me otherwise I wouldn't have signed it.

To sum up, as I see it, it's early days yet but whatever systems are
already in place will logically extend to the platform project, at
least in the interim. If change is needed in the future, that bridge
can be crossed when needed.

[Amy Stephen]

Thank you, Andrew, that was very helpful and much appreciated.

[Phil Snell]

maybe this is just an unintended consequence, but I see something also good about this idea.  Using a different SCM system for framework vs CMS at this time can help speed up the separation that is needed.   Because initially this will have to be a totally separate system, and not be hooked into any dependencies.

Not that this would be a deciding factor, but I think its beneficial to the framework developers to feel like theres a clean slate to work with, and also an exciting new system to use, that a lot of developers are adopting.  So I see that as a positive, energizing the development, and another reason to keep developers interested in this project.

[elin]

.Again simply reading the JCA tells you that it is NOT connected to the use of a particular domain, url, VCS or anything else.  As always if you wish to contribute code larger than a patch you need to sign the JCA.