OSF-GitHub Integration

[Brian Nosek]

Colleagues --

The Open Science Framework (http://osf.io/) has integrated GitHub
access and control with its OSF projects and components. You can add
GitHub repos to your projects and then view, add, delete, and sync via
either GitHub or OSF.

If you'd like to see a quick video demo of how it works, go here:
https://osf.io/getting-started/#github

This add-on is the first of many. It provides a peek into what is
coming for the OSF - integration of services across the researcher's
daily workflow to make research more efficient with better provenance,
version control, archiving, discovery, and - ultimately -
reproducibility. There are eight more add-ons in development now.
You will see announcements here as they are released.

Congratulations are due to Josh Carp and a number of others on the COS
development team for getting the add-on infrastructure in place, and
the first one out the door.

Best,

Brian

[matus.s...@privatdemail.net]

I can't make it work. I added the add-on to my account and to a project. But in the project settings, when I submit the link to the repository I get "Error: Cannot access repo."

I authorized access token and now I get: "Error: Cannot access repo. Either the repo does not exist or your account does not have permission to view it."

The repo is here: https://github.com/simkovic/wolfpackRevisited
It is accessible and public.

Target project is here: https://osf.io/qzvw4/

ms

[Brian Nosek]

Hi Matus --

Curious.  Someone from the team will follow-up with you to see if you set-up identified a bug of some kind.

Best,

Brian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Science Framework" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openscienceframe...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Tim Bates]

Great stuff Brian and team!

I wonder if OSF could get a deal (i.e., create a github team account) to allow people to create (temporary I guess) private projects to match OSF project status?

No doubt OSF-ers would pay something to access this, but perhaps less than is required for each of us as individuals?
Best, tim


On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Brian Nosek <no...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> Colleagues

[Simon Farrell]

Agreed. Github is cost prohibitive for more than a small number of private repositories, and people (me included) may want to push information (e.g., data as it is being collected) to OSF without making it public immediately. The obvious alternative is to let people push directly to OSF repos from their own (privately hosted) repositories, either on their desktop computer, or an alternative provider like Bitbucket or Gitlab Cloud (both of which have generous allowances on the number and size of repositories, at least for academics).

Meanwhile, these are certainly great developments!

Simon

______________

Simon Farrell

School of Experimental Psychology

University of Bristol

Simon....@bristol.ac.uk

http://seis.bris.ac.uk/~pssaf

[Jeffrey Spies]

Simon, Tim: you're right about GitHub, and they don't seem to be
interested in any arrangements to offer a free tier.

We'll be releasing a Bitbucket add-on (and perhaps we should add
Gitlab Cloud--although I saw a tweet by their dev telling folks not to
use it for a while) as well as investigating possible enterprise
solutions for hosting our own repos--GitHub is not open source and
Gitlab's enterprise level is proprietary. However, I think I came upon
a solution last night that may be less of a development task. Either
way, we will likely have direct git access in the near future.

Jeff.

[Arfon Smith]

Jeff, that's not quite correct.

If you're working in a non-profit or academic environment then there's a $25 reduction on all of our plans. This basically means that you can have 10 private repos (Bronze account) for free if you're a researcher working on not-for-profit research.

If you want to take advantage of this then please head over to this site and request the discount: https://education.github.com/

Cheers

Arfon

> email to openscienceframework+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeffrey Spies]

Ah, fantastic! I did see the education announcement the other day, but
missed the free tier. The COS should be taking advantage of that as
well! ;) Would it be OK to link to that on the OSF's GitHub add-on
info page?

And can we make that process seamless? Ideally, the OSF user would
agree that they qualify, and then the OSF would hook into Github to
provision that status allowing them access to those 10 private repos?
This would really simplify the transition of scientists using tools
like git and GitHub.

I very much would like to avoid/delay writing our open,
enterprise-quality git service, but finding a service that offers that
seamless quality--especially in regard to privacy--is essential for
incentivizing use of version control and further openness. Our
Bitbucket add-on will be more seamless, but they constrain number of
contributors on free their tier--which is similarly less than ideal
for the scientist.

Cheers,

Jeff.

>> > email to openscienceframe...@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Science Framework" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to openscienceframe...@googlegroups.com.

[Arfon Smith]

Actually I should clarify (as I read our own pricing pages in more detail). The absolutely free plans (micro for individuals or bronze level for organisations) are for those groups where there is a teaching/education element also in their activity. Otherwise it's just a flat 25% discount on all plans.

One of my goals over the next few months is to clear up some confusion with our pricing structure for academics vs education as often there's a very heavy overlap of the activities and I don't think it's always clear to people what they're eligible for.

As for automating something like this - I'll need to talk to the accounts team about this but in theory that could save a lot of time on both sides!

Cheers

Arfon 

>> > email to openscienceframework+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Science Framework" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to openscienceframework+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Roche]

Jeffrey Spies Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:52:27 -0500

> We'll be releasing a Bitbucket add-on

Could I get some more detail (e.g., timeline) on this?

I realize GitHub is *much* more hot'n'sexy than BB, and had a lot more repos on GH until they removed Downloads (i.e., hosting of unmanaged but code-associated files, aka "the very-poor-person's data repository"). Before that, I had noticed

* private==free on BB (and have hosted privates there for awhile)

* BB is just as easy to use as GH (whether via git, via web UI, or via API)

* both my wikis (which have used Creole simply because it does subscripts :-) and READMEs (in markdown à la GH) rendered prettier on BB

but GH forced me to notice that Bitbucket continued to allow, e.g.,

https://bitbucket.org/tlroche/aqmeii_ag_soil/downloads

So now I host most projects on Bitbucket, and am interested in OSF/BB interface for convenience. (Note that I realize this is Not The Way to repo data, but will address that in separate thread.)

TIA, Tom Roche <Tom_...@pobox.com>

[Jeffrey Spies]

Any interest in helping develop it? :)

It's certainly in the queue, but that queue is sizable. I should know
later this week what a timeline might look like. We're developing 8
other add-ons at the moment and several are finishing this week.

Jeff.

[Joshua Carp]

I had actually prototyped a BitBucket add-on a few weeks back, but stopped working on it when I found out that their API is read-only for files (can't upload, delete, create a commit, etc.). So until the BitBucket API gets better, an add-on would have to either clone and push the repo on each commit, or screen-scrape the BitBucket web-based file editor, both of which are less than ideal. Tom, if you know of a better way to get around this limitation, let me know.

[Tim Bates]

On 21 Jan 2014, at 4:10 AM, Joshua Carp <jo...@centerforopenscience.org> wrote:

I had actually prototyped a BitBucket add-on a few weeks back, but stopped working on it when I found out that their API is read-only for files (can't upload, delete, create a commit, etc.). So until the BitBucket API gets better, an add-on would have to either clone and push the repo on each commit, or screen-scrape the BitBucket web-based file editor, both of which are less than ideal. Tom, if you know of a better way to get around this limitation, let me know.

Can’t your add-on work via git? the BitBucket GUI client is easily the best available on mac (SourceTree - it’s free)

One (somewhat ignorantly, no doubt :-) ) might imagine that a good way to interact with git repos would be via git… that way it works with all hosts

Best, t

PS: I requested a teaching account, so will let you know how that works.

t

[Joshua Carp]

Tim: Yes, a BitBucket add-on could be implemented using Git, but that would be significantly slower than direct access via an API like GitHub's. To commit a file, we (the OSF) would need to clone the repo, make the change, create the commit, and push back to BitBucket. Contrast this to a single PUT request in the case of the GitHub API. We'd also need to build the same functionality for BitBucket's mercurial repos, which again isn't ideal--better not to build the same functionality twice.

In other words, it's possible to build a BitBucket add-on, and it's on our list, but limitations in their API place it lower in our priority queue than services like Amazon S3 and Figshare. Like Jeff said, if anyone's interested in developing that add-on, contributions would be much appreciated.

[sheila miguez]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Tom Roche <Tom_...@pobox.com> wrote:

I realize GitHub is *much* more hot'n'sexy than BB, and had a lot more repos on GH until they removed Downloads (i.e., hosting of unmanaged but code-associated files, aka "the very-poor-person's data repository"). Before that, I had noticed

What do you mean? I know of at least one paper that has 2GB of data stored with it in github.

--
sheila

[Jeffrey Spies]

GitHub isn't the ideal way to store big files or binary files--a lot
of inefficiency, not because of GitHub, but because of git; Tom
responded in another thread, but blob storage serves a different
purpose than standard version control repos. We're looking at
git-annex and the like as a solution for an enterprise-level git
product we're thinking about building out.

[sheila miguez]

Yes, I am aware of this and also of git-annex. But wanted to possibly correct an inaccuracy.

I've been following dat as well. it looks interesting. https://github.com/maxogden/dat

--
sheila

[Jeffrey Spies]

Dat; hadn't heard of it--thanks for the link!

[sheila miguez]

If you find more things like that, could you share them here?

[Jeffrey Spies]

Sure thing.

[Ruben Arslan]

bup was recommend to me

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8001663/can-git-treat-zip-files-as-directories-and-files-inside-the-zip-as-blobs/20129617#20129617