Hello!
I am contributing to the PhantomJS project (the premier cross-platform headless browser), which is a pretty popular open source project: 3000+ stargazers on GitHub, 50000+ downloads of the previous minor version release (1.6 & 1.6.1) in a 3 month period with the latest release (1.7) well on its way to shattering that number, many "child projects" as offshoots, and several NPM modules to wrap/proxy/control/install it from Node.js.
We've been slowly migrating all our assets over to GitHub from Google Code: first source, then some static Wiki pages to our new gh-pages based website, then the rest of the Wiki to GitHub Wiki. We now want to migrate our Issues over to GitHub Issues and obtain as much parity as possible: IDs, comments, links, tagged users, state, milestones, labels, etc.
However, since we migrated our source first (plus 3 other mirrored copies elsewhere but GH is now the primary), we've also had hundreds of GH pull requests since then. I thought this would be fine... but I recently learned that PRs and Issues share the same "numberspace" (ID counter)... surprise! As such, it is now impossible for us to achieve the ID parity (which is very important to the project owner) we desire when migrating our Issues without creating a new repo (in which case we lose our history, PR history, severe our forks, etc.).
So, a few questions:
1. Is there any git or GitHub magic to achieve this? Assuming not since the PR history would still have the conflicting IDs.
2. If not, are there any kindly souls at GitHub (perhaps consumers of PhantomJS?) who would help us renumber our PRs while maintaining their hashes (and links to them from commits, if any) in order to allow us to transfer our Issues from Google Code while still achieving ID parity?
3. If neither (), can you make a strong case for why we should still migrate our Issues to GitHub over Google Code despite the loss of parity? In other words, what advantages do GH issues offer over GC issues, other than their close integration with the source, PRs, and wiki? On the flip side, are there any disadvantages that you can point out to Google Code Issues?
Issue ID parity seems to be a dealbreaker (or very close to it) for the project owner, so if we can't achieve this he will likely not agree to migrate them at all... meaning we will continue using Google Code for our Issues. (Again: )
Please let me know. Thanks in advance!
Sincerely,
James Greene
I think you did an amazing job and managed to cover all the possible basis.
The small issues that you have clearly highlighted are passable to me: ultimately they are 2 different issue trackers.
Question 1: after migration, when do we shut down (or put in read only mode) the GCode one?
Question 2: do the issues in GCode get a link that points to the issue on GitHub in the comments?
Amazing work BTW...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "phantomjs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to phantomjs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/phantomjs?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.