Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen_developers] Re: [pcgen_ui_beta] UI sandboxes

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Wilson
    I second the proposal to move to git, it s a lot nicer to work with. andrew
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I second the proposal to move to git, it's a lot nicer to work with.

      andrew

      On 26 April 2011 11:31, Stefan Radermacher <radermacher@...> wrote:
      > On 26.04.2011 12:17, Martijn Verburg wrote in [pcgen_ui_beta]:
      >> Once we've got the UI past the private beta stage I suspect it'll
      >> effectively take over as trunk.
      >
      > Just an idea for discussion: since that is not as easy as just renaming
      > one directory tree branch, maybe it could be a good time to migrate from
      > Subversion to git, if this is at all an option. Has anybody given that a
      > thought? More and more free open source software projects are moving on
      > from subversion to the more modern git.
    • James Dempsey
      Hi, On 26/04/2011 8:31 PM Stefan Radermacher wrote ... I m not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        On 26/04/2011 8:31 PM Stefan Radermacher wrote
        > On 26.04.2011 12:17, Martijn Verburg wrote in [pcgen_ui_beta]:
        >> Once we've got the UI past the private beta stage I suspect it'll
        >> effectively take over as trunk.
        > Just an idea for discussion: since that is not as easy as just renaming
        > one directory tree branch, maybe it could be a good time to migrate from
        > Subversion to git, if this is at all an option. Has anybody given that a
        > thought? More and more free open source software projects are moving on
        > from subversion to the more modern git.
        >

        <Pulls on his old curmudgeon hat>

        I'm not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
        view. We are fairly short on volunteer time currently and spending that
        on admin work when there is plenty of development to do seems a waste.
        Currently SVN is serving us well.

        <Pulls off hat>

        GIT is certainly offered by SourceForge so it could be done. I'd be
        interested in hearing what you think would be the benefit over SVN.

        PS: Just to clarify Martijn's description then. Once the new UI is in a
        condition to replace the old UI, we would merge the uisync branch back
        into the trunk. This should be largely automatic - we've already done
        the painful manual update getting from cdomui branch to the new uisync
        branch (which started as a branch of trunk just after the release of
        5.16.6).

        Cheers,
        James.
      • Martijn Verburg
        Moving to Git (and I like Git) is a non-trivial exercise. I vote we look into that seriously once 6.0 is delivered. Git has a mindset shift and a learning
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Moving to Git (and I like Git) is a non-trivial exercise. I vote we look into that seriously once 6.0 is delivered.

          Git has a mindset shift and a learning curve that some of team (who don't use version control often) may also struggle with.  We need to factor that in as well.

          K

          On 26 April 2011 12:09, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
           

          Hi,

          On 26/04/2011 8:31 PM Stefan Radermacher wrote


          > On 26.04.2011 12:17, Martijn Verburg wrote in [pcgen_ui_beta]:
          >> Once we've got the UI past the private beta stage I suspect it'll
          >> effectively take over as trunk.
          > Just an idea for discussion: since that is not as easy as just renaming
          > one directory tree branch, maybe it could be a good time to migrate from
          > Subversion to git, if this is at all an option. Has anybody given that a
          > thought? More and more free open source software projects are moving on
          > from subversion to the more modern git.
          >

          <Pulls on his old curmudgeon hat>

          I'm not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
          view. We are fairly short on volunteer time currently and spending that
          on admin work when there is plenty of development to do seems a waste.
          Currently SVN is serving us well.

          <Pulls off hat>

          GIT is certainly offered by SourceForge so it could be done. I'd be
          interested in hearing what you think would be the benefit over SVN.

          PS: Just to clarify Martijn's description then. Once the new UI is in a
          condition to replace the old UI, we would merge the uisync branch back
          into the trunk. This should be largely automatic - we've already done
          the painful manual update getting from cdomui branch to the new uisync
          branch (which started as a branch of trunk just after the release of
          5.16.6).

          Cheers,
          James.


        • Andrew
          Hi, I ll second the concerns and add to them: My concerns from the Admin Side - 1) Does Hudson Support it? 2) Does JIRA Support it? 3) Do the popular coding
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            I'll second the concerns and add to them:

            My concerns from the Admin Side -
            1) Does Hudson Support it?
            2) Does JIRA Support it?
            3) Do the popular coding tools support it? (Eclipse, ANT, et al)
            4) Are there easy tools to obtain and plenty of cross-platform support for it? How much time will it take the people using it to switch over (DL new client, set up hassles, etc?)

            What type of time commitment are we looking at?

            How much overhead will this poor monkey be doing to get everything working behind the scenes? [Remember, we have a mailing list that is linked into the current SVN]

            Considering we have only James currently handling Code issues, I'll also second the time vs. cost benefit; what exactly does GIT do over SVN that we would want to devote time away from PCGen UI or bug fixes? I read something about "Directory Restructuring", uh, sounds nice, but how often are we needing to restructure our directory?

            Since James is tied up, is anyone else willing to devote the necessary time to handle this project by themselves?

            Personally, If we were going to transition, I think having all the people that have a vested interest have a say - Content, Code, Arch, PR and even Admin all are tied closely to the use of the SVN. Which means a BoD decision - Next BoD is May 2nd, 10pm EST - sounds like a good time to discuss the above.

            Cheers,


            On 4/26/2011 4:09 AM, James Dempsey wrote:
            --
            Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
            Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
            Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
            Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
            Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"
          • Stefan Radermacher
            ... I m certainly not an expert on git, in fact, I am only climbing the learning curve myself currently, but the fact that many big FOSS projects like KDE,
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 26.04.2011 13:31, Andrew wrote:

              > My concerns from the Admin Side -
              > 1) Does Hudson Support it?
              > 2) Does JIRA Support it?
              > 3) Do the popular coding tools support it? (Eclipse, ANT, et al)
              > 4) Are there easy tools to obtain and plenty of cross-platform support
              > for it? How much time will it take the people using it to switch over
              > (DL new client, set up hassles, etc?)

              I'm certainly not an expert on git, in fact, I am only climbing the
              learning curve myself currently, but the fact that many big FOSS
              projects like KDE, Gnome, Wine, X, Eclipse, Ruby, Debian, or Qt have a
              moved to git implies that the development tools most widely used in the
              FOSS community will most certainly comply with git. Eclipse, for example
              has EGit as a team provider, and it would be very strange if it was
              developed on git but would not support it itself. I don't think the SCC
              used has no relevance for ant.

              Anyway, I just though it might be worth thinking about this.

              Stefan.
            • Andrew Wilson
              ... All very sensible. ... I ve used them both. For me, begining to use git was not that difficult, I found it closely resembled SVN, close enough that the
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 26, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                On 26 April 2011 12:09, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
                > <Pulls on his old curmudgeon hat>
                >
                > I'm not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
                > view. We are fairly short on volunteer time currently and spending that
                > on admin work when there is plenty of development to do seems a waste.
                > Currently SVN is serving us well.
                >
                > <Pulls off hat>

                All very sensible.

                > GIT is certainly offered by SourceForge so it could be done. I'd be
                > interested in hearing what you think would be the benefit over SVN.

                I've used them both. For me, begining to use git was not that difficult,
                I found it closely resembled SVN, close enough that the concepts
                mapped easily, but I found it more useful. It handles doing mutiple
                things much better than SVN. I often find myself with multiple bits of
                change going on at the same time in the same build area. I start
                something and then find myself in the middle of something else.
                Resolving this with cvs or svn is a severe PITA for me, with git it's
                really really easy. Maybe you're all disciplined enough that this
                doesn't happen to you, but it happens to me.

                Creating and merging development lines is easy, much easier than with
                svn, IMO (and I think for most people who try it).

                Temporarily parking a change to come back to it later, takes seconds
                seconds to put it away, seconds to get it back into the current directory.
                In the general case I find it easier to work with abnd more powerful than
                SVN.

                > PS: Just to clarify Martijn's description then. Once the new UI is in a
                > condition to replace the old UI, we would merge the uisync branch back
                > into the trunk. This should be largely automatic - we've already done
                > the painful manual update getting from cdomui branch to the new uisync
                > branch (which started as a branch of trunk just after the release of
                > 5.16.6).

                If you've already gone through the pain of the main merge, then there
                probably wont be any great benefit from moving to git for that.

                andrew
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.