IMPORTANT - TestLink changes (tsunami) after Sourceforge Attack

[Francisco Mancardi]

Hi everyone:

After Sourceforge Attack on January, we were stucked due to no CVS Access.
Then Sourceforge made a sound statement  ' ... we will plan to dismiss CVS ...' => time (most feared by me) to change
Source Control Management System has arrived.

Considering SVN not the choice (on the net people said -> has roots on CVS => has the same problems), and with all
the fuzz on distributed revision control system, having some people that already use GIT => choice is GIT.

During days of zero development due to no CVS access, I've been doing searches on the net, contact some people of our team that already use
(and had suggested time ago the switch), chat on IRC #git , to understand how to migrate, how development will be done on future.
Erik pointed me to the best source (IMHO) of info on GIT : ProGit.

Then what has happened ?
1. I've get a backup of CVS repository using rsync (as sf documentation explain). (you can also do that)
2. I've sent a zipped copy to Julian via megaupload  (just to have a backup on other location)
3. have restored tCVS repo on my laptop and checked was OK

4. Created project on gitorious (teslink name was already taken by Erik => I've used testlink-ga  General Availability)
   with 3 repositories
   testlink-code
   testlink-documentation (still empty)
   testlink-tests  (still empty)

5. pushed (commited) HEAD and 1.9 branch ONLY
6. Repeated operation on SOURCEFORGE git repo
7. Change CVS rights to allow ONLY Julian and Andreas Simon to do writes,
because think they have something to commit to RELEASE 1.9.2  (I also have this level of access but plan NOT TO USE)
8. enable GIT WRITE access for all current developers (Erik,Julian,Andreas Simon,Amit, me) on SF
9. Other inactive developers can ask for GIT access, and people with admin access on SF can enable it himself when they want.

This means I have made a choose a ALL / NOTHING transition pattern => CVS is dead Long Live to GIT,
and this maybe can slow development for some developers, but is only choice.

Do not plan to RE-CREATE OLD branches on GIT, but if you have good reasons to do this let me know.

IMPORTANT:
if i'm not wrong people developers need ALSO to create account on gitorious in order to allow me to configure on this
repo as developers => can write.

Ideas/comments are welcomed

Regards

Francisco

[Erik Eloff]

I've had a chat with fransisco regarding git migration and this is a
short summary:

The decision to move from cvs to git has been made.
Now there are three different git hosts to choose from: sourceforge,
github and gitorious

SF:
+ users already set up (probably still needs some work due to attack)
- web interface is too simple

Github:
+ graphical view of branches
+ good support for merge requests and code reviews
+ Smart HTTP support (works behind proxy,
https://github.com/blog/642-smart-http-support)
- only one admin per repo
> github is user-centered
> more popular, larger familiar user base

Gitorious:
+ multiple admins per project
+ open source backend (possible to self-host)
- no smart http support
> gitorious is project-centered

SourceForge is not really a good alternative.
The drawback with github is that the username is visible in the url.
It is possible to create a testlink user that is admin and then add
all developers as collaborators. The admin is the only one that may
add developers to this blessed repo. (Since we are using git is is
still possible to develop without being a collaborator on github).
Also the support for proxy on github is a good advantage since many
testlink users are behind company firewalls.

As you probably understood I personally prefer github (I've used both)
since I think it is easier to work with. Also it is easy to merge
contributions from users.

More pros and cons for those who like reading:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/78991/why-is-github-more-popular-than-gitorious
http://blogs.gentoo.org/nightmorph/2010/02/16/gitorious-or-github/

2011/2/13 Francisco Mancardi <francisco...@gmail.com>:

[Francisco Mancardi]

Erik:
I want a project centered service not a user centered as explained during chat, and this is main feature
on what will be choice.

Popular or not is not a value on the choice I will plan to do.

do not want to have a common user with admin power shared between people.

do not consider this a must, people can ask corporate IT to configure access.
 

As you probably understood I personally prefer github (I've used both)

From our chat do not seem that you have intensivelly used both but just github,
would you mind to explain?

 

since I think it is easier to work with. Also it is easy to merge
contributions from users.

Thanks for this help, I will consider all this info at the time I will do the choice

regards

Francisco

 

[Francisco Mancardi]

I've read with as much attention as possible both link provided, and as usual in each 'Religion War' (C better than Pascal, or C++ worst than Java, or Coldfusion sucks and PHP not, and so on) both sides are right and wrong.

As stated what I like less from github ( and can be silly) is his user centric model, while I prefer a project center.
See no evidence to said ' ... oh my god yes!, i want github ... ', nor ' ... oh my god yes!, i want gitorious...',
I've also asked on IRC #git, and get no light all people (really two) use the old ' ... try both and make a choice ...'.

Stated again I will try to evaluate both and see what happens.
Only clear choice is 'SF is not a choice it's web interface is too primivite'.

regards

Francisco

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Erik Eloff <er...@eloff.se> wrote:

[Martin Havlat]

Hi

As stated what I like less from github ( and can be silly) is his user centric model, while I prefer a project center.

My impression is that it depends on project setting and branching strategy and not on site.

Stated again I will try to evaluate both and see what happens.
Only clear choice is 'SF is not a choice it's web interface is too primivite'.

I see that SF uses standard gitweb web interface. Guys in our company use the component/plugin as well. It doesn't look primitive.
Anyway the most important is reliability of the site. I wish you lucky hand for the choice.

Martin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "testlink-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to testli...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to testlink-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/testlink-dev?hl=en.

-- This message has been checked by ESVA and is believed to be clean.

[Toshiyuki Kawanishi]

Hi:

Excuse me, my long silence.

I have mirrored the CVS repository to my git repository for TTF testing since half years ago.
It contain commits from 2003-10-16 12:40:10 to 2011-02-11 23:51:07.

You can clone the following repository:
git://testlink-ttf.org/git/testlink.git

If you need old branches, please clone them from mirror and push to new repository.

Please let me know if there is anything I can help with.

With best regards:

Toshiyuki Kawanishi
toshi.k...@gmail.com

-- This message has been checked by ESVA and is believed to be clean. --