Google Code repository

[Andrew Plotkin]

As was widely lamented last week, Google Code is being phased out.
Is there a plan for a new development location? What about binaries?

I see at least three copies of the repo on Github:

https://github.com/salty-horse/garglk [somewhat behind?]
https://github.com/cspiegel/garglk
https://github.com/timofonic/garglk-gcode

Too many copies is better than too few, but it would be nice to be able to
point at one as official.

There's a directory on the Archive
(http://ifarchive.org/if-archive/interpreters-multi/gargoyle/) but it's
out of date. We should, at a minimum, copy all the files from
https://code.google.com/p/garglk/downloads/list over there.

(I burned the code.google.com URL into README files for _Hadean Lands_,
thinking it would last forever, ha ha joke on me...)

--Z

--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*

[Ori Avtalion]

I can update my repository at https://github.com/salty-horse/garglk, if this is the direction you wish to go.

[Chris Spiegel]

On 03/14/2015 08:26 PM, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> As was widely lamented last week, Google Code is being phased out.
> Is there a plan for a new development location? What about binaries?
>
> I see at least three copies of the repo on Github:
>
> https://github.com/salty-horse/garglk [somewhat behind?]
> https://github.com/cspiegel/garglk
> https://github.com/timofonic/garglk-gcode
>
> Too many copies is better than too few, but it would be nice to be able
> to point at one as official.

My repository (cspiegel) was just made as a proactive safety measure: I
wanted to ensure it wasn't lost.

If somebody *wants* to be the official repository--especially if you're
capable of producing an equivalent set of binaries as in previous
releases--I'd happily delete my repo and just create a fork.

In the end, as long as the official repository owner is responsive to
merge requests and/or a collaborator list is used, that's enough for me.
I do think it should be an import of the Google Code version, though,
so the issues list comes over. Neither the salty-horse nor the
timofonic repos have a copy of the issues as it currently stands.

[Ori Avtalion]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Chris Spiegel <cspi...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the end, as long as the official repository owner is responsive to
merge requests and/or a collaborator list is used, that's enough for me.
 I do think it should be an import of the Google Code version, though,
so the issues list comes over.  Neither the salty-horse nor the
timofonic repos have a copy of the issues as it currently stands.

Google provides an issue exporter tool:
https://code.google.com/p/support-tools/wiki/IssueExporterTool

[Andrew Plotkin]

Chris Spiegel wrote:
> If somebody *wants* to be the official repository--especially if you're
> capable of producing an equivalent set of binaries as in previous
> releases--I'd happily delete my repo and just create a fork.

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Ori Avtalion wrote:

> I can update my repository at https <https://github.com/salty-horse/garglk>

> if this is the direction you wish to go.

Sounds like it's you, and Chris can fork it. :)

I've uploaded the 2011 files to
http://ifarchive.org/if-archive/unprocessed/ .

[Ori Avtalion]

Should I create a new "garglk" user and "garglk" project, and convert the issues there?

[Andrew Plotkin]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Ori Avtalion wrote:

> Should I create a new "garglk" user and "garglk" project, and convert the
> issues there?

I think a "garglk" organization would make more sense than a user? If
you're willing to be the owner.

[Ori Avtalion]

OK, I'll do that.

[Ori Avtalion]

Is it OK if I don't convert these branches in the SVN history? It requires some fiddling:
stable-20060917
stable-20081225
stable-20090825
stable-2010.1
stable-2010.2
stable-2011.1

If it's important, I can transfer them.

[Andrew Plotkin]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Ori Avtalion wrote:

> Is it OK if I don't convert these branches in the SVN history? It requires
> some fiddling:
> stable-20060917
> stable-20081225
> stable-20090825
> stable-2010.1
> stable-2010.2
> stable-2011.1
>
> If it's important, I can transfer them.

I'd say it's important to be able to check out each known release point. I
don't care if those wind up being git tags or branches.

[Chris Spiegel]

On 3/15/2015 11:28 AM, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Ori Avtalion wrote:
>
>> Is it OK if I don't convert these branches in the SVN history? It
>> requires
>> some fiddling:
>> stable-20060917
>> stable-20081225
>> stable-20090825
>> stable-2010.1
>> stable-2010.2
>> stable-2011.1
>>
>> If it's important, I can transfer them.
>
> I'd say it's important to be able to check out each known release point.
> I don't care if those wind up being git tags or branches.

Using the "Export to Github" option from Google Code will automatically
carry over the branches (as well as the wiki and issues). Is there a
good reason not to just remove any existing garglk repo on github and
create a new one via Google's export tool?

[Ori Avtalion]

OK, please review:

https://github.com/garglk/garglk

I haven't exported the issues yet. Investigating that next.

Branches turned into tags -- I forgot that git-svn creates them correctly :)

Commit author names have been turned into names and emails based on the authors' existing GitHub identities.
I didn't feel like I should ask anyone if that's OK, since I found the info online, but if you want your emails scrubbed or something, I apologize, and can force-push a new repository.

I have invited Ben and Chris to be owners of the garglk organization.

[Ori Avtalion]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Chris Spiegel <cspi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Using the "Export to Github" option from Google Code will automatically
carry over the branches (as well as the wiki and issues).  Is there a
good reason not to just remove any existing garglk repo on github and
create a new one via Google's export tool?

It wanted me to remove my exisitng "salty-horse/garglk" repository, and wasn't reconfigurable so I didn't try it.

The repository has now been converted, with manual tweaks of committer names and branches->tags, so I'm not sure it matters.

I'll work on the issues now, and I think the Export to Github button uses the same script I linked earlier.

[Andrew Plotkin]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Ori Avtalion wrote:

> Branches turned into tags -- I forgot that git-svn creates them correctly :)

Ok, good. :)

Looks fine to me.

[Ori Avtalion]

OK, turns out I need some permissions to convert the issues.

Google's script needs a JSON dump file of all issues, and that's only available to owners:

It can be obtained from <https://www.google.com/settings/takeout>

So, either someone help me (or run the script themselves), or I will try "the button" after deleting my own garglk repository on Github.

I'll try to migrate the (few) wiki pages in the meantime.

[Ori Avtalion]

OK, I converted the wiki pages and uploaded all of the files to this "release" tag page:

https://github.com/garglk/garglk/releases/tag/stable-2011.1

Perhaps that release's description should change to annotate what each file does (by clicking "edit release") - Github doesn't allow adding descriptions for files, but there's a wiki box that can include a listing.

And the Developers wiki should be updated - it points to Google Code's svn at some point.

I think I'm done for today. Will be available tomorrow.

Enjoy your shiny new home, which is unlikely to shut down in the next year, at the least!