Repository and bug tracker moving

[ricardo lafuente]

Hai again (last email was in my outbox for a couple of days)

I've spoken to Aymeric of Puredyne regarding how we can have Shoebot in
their repositories (and by that including it in the Puredyne distro).
I'll be setting up our PPA and after that it will be only a couple of steps.

Now, another issue that will require a bit of thought: Aymeric left
GOTO10 (the collective that hosts our repository and bug tracker), and
i've heard that soon they'll be closing down their servers. Which means
that we'll have to move both our main repository and bug tracker to
somewhere else.

I asked for his opinion about Launchpad's bug tracker and it appears
that it's a good platform. So if no one voices out their opposition to
this until the weekend, i think it's worth doing the move.

Now the repository. The quickest way out would be to move the repository
to BitBucket, i guess. We'd get all the nice perks (visual diff, easy
download of tip, easy branching) and not much of a hassle. Any other
thoughts + additions?

A last question. After looking into the Shoebot package contents, a lot
of it is taken by the XML files from the colors lib, and mostly it's the
libs that are taking up space. I'd propose (again) to split the packages
into 'shoebot' and 'shoebot-libs'.

This has the disadvantage of not having 'batteries included' in shoebot,
but on the other hand the libs have dependencies that should not be
required when installing Shoebot, and it would generally be easier to
maintain the different parts of shoebot. Also, during LGM i've talked to
Tom de Smedt and he had the interesting idea of having a common set of
libraries that would work with Nodebox and Shoebot, making them easy to
maintain and share updates between the two projects.

So in a nutshell, these are the 3 questions that would welcome feedback:
- move our bug tracker to Launchpad?
- move our main repository to BitBucket?
- split the code tree into 'main' shoebot and libraries?

[francesco fantoni]

for me it's "go" for the three of them :)

francesco

Post by ricardo lafuente
- move our bug tracker to Launchpad?
- move our main repository to BitBucket?
- split the code tree into 'main' shoebot and libraries?
_______________________________________________
Shoebot-devel mailing list
http://lists.tinkerhouse.net/listinfo.cgi/shoebot-devel-tinkerhouse.net

[Dave Crossland]

Post by ricardo lafuente
- move our bug tracker to Launchpad?
- move our main repository to BitBucket?

If we move our bug tracker to Launchpad, we ought to move our main
repository to Launchpad too.

Post by ricardo lafuente
- split the code tree into 'main' shoebot and libraries?

+1 - especially if we can share libraries with Nodebox. That would be
a major win.

[ricardo lafuente]

Post by Dave Crossland
If we move our bug tracker to Launchpad, we ought to move our main
repository to Launchpad too.

This would imply a move to Bazaar as our version control system, i
think. I don't think i'm ready for this yet... especially since it would
be the only think making me consider using bzr, since lately i heard
wonderful things about Git. But i'm always open to be proven wrong :-)

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by ricardo lafuente
- split the code tree into 'main' shoebot and libraries?

+1 - especially if we can share libraries with Nodebox. That would be
a major win.

Yes -- Tom told me hands-down that this would be something they'd love
as well (actually, it was his idea). So we should definitely take this
as an aim for the project.

[Dave Crossland]

This would imply a move to Bazaar as our version control system, i think.

Choice of DVCS doesn't seem significant here, to me.

BitBucket is a fully proprietary platform, while Launchpad is a hosted
service with its source code Affero published.

[ricardo lafuente]

Post by Dave Crossland

This would imply a move to Bazaar as our version control system, i think.

Choice of DVCS doesn't seem significant here, to me.
BitBucket is a fully proprietary platform, while Launchpad is a hosted
service with its source code Affero published.

Very good point -- i'm convinced.
Any other developers mind if we begin considering a transition to Bazaar
as our VCS, given the argument put forward by Dave?

[francesco fantoni]

I've not contributed much recently, but I've had some experience with a
bazaar based project, and it was not too bad actually.
francesco

Post by ricardo lafuente

Post by Dave Crossland

This would imply a move to Bazaar as our version control system, i think.

Choice of DVCS doesn't seem significant here, to me.
BitBucket is a fully proprietary platform, while Launchpad is a hosted
service with its source code Affero published.

Very good point -- i'm convinced.
Any other developers mind if we begin considering a transition to Bazaar
as our VCS, given the argument put forward by Dave?
_______________________________________________
Shoebot-devel mailing list
http://lists.tinkerhouse.net/listinfo.cgi/shoebot-devel-tinkerhouse.net

[Dave Crossland]

Post by francesco fantoni
I've had some experience with a
bazaar based project, and it was not too bad actually.

I understand that they have different performance profiles, but that's
not relevant to a small project like this.

I also hear that git's command set is closer to how it technically
works - which means users must learn more about how it works 'under
the hood' than with hg or bzr, and that is a bug or a feature
depending on who you are. I would say that's a bug for this project.

http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html
is pretty convincing.

[ricardo lafuente]

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by francesco fantoni
I've had some experience with a
bazaar based project, and it was not too bad actually.

I understand that they have different performance profiles, but that's
not relevant to a small project like this.

True,

Post by Dave Crossland
I also hear that git's command set is closer to how it technically
works - which means users must learn more about how it works 'under
the hood' than with hg or bzr, and that is a bug or a feature
depending on who you are. I would say that's a bug for this project.

Also true,

Post by Dave Crossland
http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html
is pretty convincing.

I'm convinced after reading it.

I'd suggest that we consider a transition after the 0.3 release is done.
Also, maybe it's also worth waiting for Stu's 0.4 work to be complete
before the switch?
On the other hand, the quicker we migrate, the better. So i'd like to
know the general opinion on the timing.

Finally, after talking to Stani for a while, i think it's definitely
time that we begin adhering to general development principles. The
'hack-as-you-go' approach has served us well so far, but if we want to
have our stuff in the Ubuntu repositories and have the project remain
credible, it would be a good move to shift to time-based releases, e.g.
every 6 months.

So, 2 questions here:
- If/When a switch to bzr should be done
- Everyone ok with moving to a 6-month release cycle?

[Dave Crossland]

Post by ricardo lafuente
- If/When a switch to bzr should be done

The day the 0.3 release is out? :-)

Post by ricardo lafuente
- Everyone ok with moving to a 6-month release cycle?

Being in a distro's reps isn't tied to a steady release cycle.

This is a tiny project, there isn't enough activity to make a set
cycle tempo meaningful; my guess is that if you say we will do this,
we actually won't, and it will reduce credibility.

[ricardo lafuente]

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by ricardo lafuente
- If/When a switch to bzr should be done

The day the 0.3 release is out? :-)

Sounds fine :)

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by ricardo lafuente
- Everyone ok with moving to a 6-month release cycle?

Being in a distro's reps isn't tied to a steady release cycle.
This is a tiny project, there isn't enough activity to make a set
cycle tempo meaningful; my guess is that if you say we will do this,
we actually won't, and it will reduce credibility.

Hmm, that's true. Let's keep stuff as it is then.

[Sebastian Oliva]

Post by ricardo lafuente

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by ricardo lafuente
- If/When a switch to bzr should be done

The day the 0.3 release is out? :-)

Sounds fine :)

I am not a fan of bzr, I'd rather use either Mercurial or Git, as for
the hosting service, Gitorious seems really nice, and it's AGPL as
well.

Although I'd have to admit, git is a tad confusing at the beginning,
it's power on merging and branching it's unrivaled by other DVCS,
maybe it would be good to keep a mirror on various VCS hostings, such
as GitHub or Gitorious, and a HG, and try to integrate those merges on
to the mainstream.

also Git has a page as well :P
http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/

Post by ricardo lafuente

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by ricardo lafuente
- Everyone ok with moving to a 6-month release cycle?

Being in a distro's reps isn't tied to a steady release cycle.
This is a tiny project, there isn't enough activity to make a set
cycle tempo meaningful; my guess is that if you say we will do this,
we actually won't, and it will reduce credibility.

Hmm, that's true. Let's keep stuff as it is then.

I agree with this.

I'd also like to add that there is OpenSUSE build Service, a service
to create packages and repos, no only for OpenSUSE, but also .debs for
Debian and Ubuntu, and RPMs, maybe it could be useful as well.

[Stuart Axon]

I'd want to know that BZR works OK on Windows before switching.

My uninformed guess is that git and mecurial seem more appealing though:
mecurial because of the low barrier to entry for people used to svn or cvs.

git has a higher barrier to entry, but I have heard good things + the fact that a large number of projects are using it.


Definitely switching (to whatever) after 0.3 is released would be good; I want to be able to integrate any changes into the 0.4 branch easily.

(The amount of changes is mounting up a lot more than I would've wanted at the beginning; as it's not really a good thing in an open source project to make a branch too divergent - but never mind (it's still basically the same :) ))


S++



----- Original Message ----

Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 8:28:38 PM
Subject: Re: [shoebot-devel] Repository and bug tracker moving
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, ricardo lafuente <
On 06/03/2010 06:29 PM, Dave Crossland

On 3 June 2010 19:18, ricardo lafuente<

Post by ricardo lafuente
- If/When a switch to bzr should be

done

The day the 0.3 release is out? :-)

Sounds fine :)

I am not a fan of bzr, I'd rather use either Mercurial

or Git, as for

the hosting service, Gitorious seems really nice, and it's

AGPL as

well.

Although I'd have to admit, git is a tad confusing at

the beginning,

it's power on merging and branching it's unrivaled by other

DVCS,

maybe it would be good to keep a mirror on various VCS hostings,

such

as GitHub or Gitorious, and a HG, and try to integrate those merges

on

to the mainstream.

also Git has a page as well

:P

http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/

Post by ricardo lafuente
- Everyone ok

with moving to a 6-month release cycle?

Being in a

distro's reps isn't tied to a steady release cycle.

This

is a tiny project, there isn't enough activity to make a set

cycle

tempo meaningful; my guess is that if you say we will do this,

we

actually won't, and it will reduce credibility.
Hmm, that's
true. Let's keep stuff as it is then.

I agree with this.

I'd also

like to add that there is OpenSUSE build Service, a service

to create

packages and repos, no only for OpenSUSE, but also .debs for

Debian and

Ubuntu, and RPMs, maybe it could be useful as
well.

_______________________________________________
Shoebot-devel

mailing list

http://lists.tinkerhouse.net/listinfo.cgi/shoebot-devel-tinkerhouse.net