From chris at qwirx.com Sun Aug 30 19:20:26 2015 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:20:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Switch to Git version control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Box Backup users, Thanks to James O'Gorman for his very hard work, I think we are about ready to switch over to Git for version control, hosted on GitHub . This is your last chance to raise any objections :) If nobody objects, in about 24 hours we will disable the Subversion repository and the Github account will become the new master repo. Thanks, Chris. On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > James O'Gorman and I have been discussing the merits of switching to using > Git instead of Subversion for version control, and moving the code to Github. > > Advantages that I'm aware of: > > * I already use Git for many projects, and I'm now very familiar and > comfortable with it. I started using git-svn on Box Backup earlier this year, > to get the advantages of Git such as working offline and working with > branches easily. I would get more benefit if our main repository was in Git, > not in Subversion. > > * We'd get credit on Github for our contributions to Box Backup. > > * We'd have the Github issue tracker which is much better than Trac's and > solves part of the spam problem that forced us to disable registrations on > Trac, which prevents people from submitting tickets. > > The main disadvantage that I can think of is that checking out and updating > the source code would require knowledge of Git instead of Subversion, which > is newer and therefore less common. > > I am NOT currently proposing to move the website or the mailing list. I know > that hosting the mailing list on Mailman is painful for James, and would be > happy to investigate alternatives that make it easier, but we can do that > independently. > > I see no particular reason to move the website off Trac unless we can find a > better Wiki solution. Github Pages might be it, or it might not. It would be > nice to be able to edit Pages in Markdown, clone a copy of the entire wiki > and convert it to HTML as offline documentation. > > James has already done a lot of work in preparing a Git-SVN configuration > that can be used to migrate our code with full history to Github. I think > he's using this configuration that he sent me by email a month ago: > >>>> My migrate had converted most of the Subversion usernames to "Full Name >>>> " as is the Git style, and I think excluded the git-svn stuff in >>>> the commit messages, as well as creating each person's branches. >>> >>> How did you do it? >> >> Not easily! It took a lot of fiddling and tweaking and spending hours >> re-running the import. Here's my .git/config: > > [core] > repositoryformatversion = 0 > filemode = true > bare = false > logallrefupdates = true > ignorecase = true > precomposeunicode = false > [svn-remote "svn"] > noMetadata = 1 > ignore-paths = ^(bitten|boxbackup-web|james|packages) > url = https://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box > fetch = trunk:refs/remotes/trunk > branches = ./*:refs/remotes/* > branches = ben/*:refs/remotes/ben/* > branches = chris/{acl,boxi,general,retry-debug}:refs/remotes/chris/* > branches = chris/win32/*:refs/remotes/chris/win32/* > branches = chromi/*:refs/remotes/chromi/* > branches = > gary/{0.09-orig,boxbackup-0.09,boxbackup-0.09-mod}:refs/remotes/gary/* > branches = features/*:refs/remotes/features/* > branches = invisnet/{perfhack1,vs2010}:refs/remotes/invisnet/* > branches = martin/*:refs/remotes/martin/* > branches = nick/*:refs/remotes/nick/* > tags = RELEASE/*:refs/remotes/tags/* > tags = snapshots/*:refs/remotes/tags/* > [svn] > authorsfile = /Users/jamesog/git/users.txt > >> And the authorsfile looks like: > > ben = Ben Summers > cbkm = Kenny Millington > chris = Chris Wilson > chromi = Jonathan Morton > daveb = Dave Bamford > gary = Gary > invisnet = Charles Lecklider > jamesog = James O'Gorman > martin = Martin Ebourne > nick = Nick Knight > per = Per Reedtz Thomsen > petjal = Pete Jalajas > stenor = Stefan Norlin > >> I couldn't find the email addresses for Gary or Nick. > > If you could confirm your Github email addresses then we can make sure you > get full credit on Github for your commits if the migration goes ahead. > > So please could you let us know if you agree or disagree with this change? > > Cheers, Chris. > -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From sio at tesser.org Sun Aug 30 20:47:28 2015 From: sio at tesser.org (Sharif Olorin) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:47:28 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Switch to Git version control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <366605AD-ED13-465B-878E-9CF532E2BC24@tesser.org> None from this random user; moving to github would make submitting patches much lower-friction. Sharif -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cam.lafit at azerttyu.net Sun Aug 30 22:50:43 2015 From: cam.lafit at azerttyu.net (cam.lafit at azerttyu.net) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:50:43 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Switch to Git version control In-Reply-To: <366605AD-ED13-465B-878E-9CF532E2BC24@tesser.org> References: <366605AD-ED13-465B-878E-9CF532E2BC24@tesser.org> Message-ID: Hi Great news :) Is a git project Long time ago I've forked , BoxBackupExplorer because any repository was enabled. Maybe would be a great idea to integrate it on boxbackup group and allow fork from it http://www.joonis.de/en/software/boxbackup-explorer https://github.com/camlafit/BoxBackupExplorer Km From chris at qwirx.com Mon Aug 31 18:33:11 2015 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:33:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Switch to Git version control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Box Backup users, We are going ahead with the migration to Git now. The official repository is effective immediately. James, please could you disable the Subversion repository? Thanks, Chris. On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, Chris Wilson wrote: > Dear Box Backup users, > > Thanks to James O'Gorman for his very hard work, I think we are about ready > to switch over to Git for version control, hosted on GitHub > . > > This is your last chance to raise any objections :) If nobody objects, in > about 24 hours we will disable the Subversion repository and the Github > account will become the new master repo. > > Thanks, Chris. > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> James O'Gorman and I have been discussing the merits of switching to using >> Git instead of Subversion for version control, and moving the code to >> Github. >> >> Advantages that I'm aware of: >> >> * I already use Git for many projects, and I'm now very familiar and >> comfortable with it. I started using git-svn on Box Backup earlier this >> year, to get the advantages of Git such as working offline and working with >> branches easily. I would get more benefit if our main repository was in >> Git, not in Subversion. >> >> * We'd get credit on Github for our contributions to Box Backup. >> >> * We'd have the Github issue tracker which is much better than Trac's and >> solves part of the spam problem that forced us to disable registrations on >> Trac, which prevents people from submitting tickets. >> >> The main disadvantage that I can think of is that checking out and updating >> the source code would require knowledge of Git instead of Subversion, which >> is newer and therefore less common. >> >> I am NOT currently proposing to move the website or the mailing list. I >> know that hosting the mailing list on Mailman is painful for James, and >> would be happy to investigate alternatives that make it easier, but we can >> do that independently. >> >> I see no particular reason to move the website off Trac unless we can find >> a better Wiki solution. Github Pages might be it, or it might not. It would >> be nice to be able to edit Pages in Markdown, clone a copy of the entire >> wiki and convert it to HTML as offline documentation. >> >> James has already done a lot of work in preparing a Git-SVN configuration >> that can be used to migrate our code with full history to Github. I think >> he's using this configuration that he sent me by email a month ago: >> >>>>> My migrate had converted most of the Subversion usernames to "Full Name >>>>> " as is the Git style, and I think excluded the git-svn stuff in >>>>> the commit messages, as well as creating each person's branches. >>>> >>>> How did you do it? >>> >>> Not easily! It took a lot of fiddling and tweaking and spending hours >>> re-running the import. Here's my .git/config: >> >> [core] >> repositoryformatversion = 0 >> filemode = true >> bare = false >> logallrefupdates = true >> ignorecase = true >> precomposeunicode = false >> [svn-remote "svn"] >> noMetadata = 1 >> ignore-paths = ^(bitten|boxbackup-web|james|packages) >> url = https://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box >> fetch = trunk:refs/remotes/trunk >> branches = ./*:refs/remotes/* >> branches = ben/*:refs/remotes/ben/* >> branches = chris/{acl,boxi,general,retry-debug}:refs/remotes/chris/* >> branches = chris/win32/*:refs/remotes/chris/win32/* >> branches = chromi/*:refs/remotes/chromi/* >> branches = >> gary/{0.09-orig,boxbackup-0.09,boxbackup-0.09-mod}:refs/remotes/gary/* >> branches = features/*:refs/remotes/features/* >> branches = invisnet/{perfhack1,vs2010}:refs/remotes/invisnet/* >> branches = martin/*:refs/remotes/martin/* >> branches = nick/*:refs/remotes/nick/* >> tags = RELEASE/*:refs/remotes/tags/* >> tags = snapshots/*:refs/remotes/tags/* >> [svn] >> authorsfile = /Users/jamesog/git/users.txt >> >>> And the authorsfile looks like: >> >> ben = Ben Summers >> cbkm = Kenny Millington >> chris = Chris Wilson >> chromi = Jonathan Morton >> daveb = Dave Bamford >> gary = Gary >> invisnet = Charles Lecklider >> jamesog = James O'Gorman >> martin = Martin Ebourne >> nick = Nick Knight >> per = Per Reedtz Thomsen >> petjal = Pete Jalajas >> stenor = Stefan Norlin >> >>> I couldn't find the email addresses for Gary or Nick. >> >> If you could confirm your Github email addresses then we can make sure you >> get full credit on Github for your commits if the migration goes ahead. >> >> So please could you let us know if you agree or disagree with this change? >> >> Cheers, Chris. >> > > -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From chris at qwirx.com Mon Aug 31 22:13:57 2015 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:13:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Merge pull requests automatically In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Chris Wilson wrote: > We are going ahead with the migration to Git now. The official > repository is effective > immediately. And just hours later, we have our first pull request! Thank you Moritz Strube :) At EuroSciPy on Friday, Peter Hintjens (of ZeroMQ) gave a very inspiring talk about how important the community is for Open Source projects, and what we can do to help foster a healthy and growing community. He has written about this in chapter 6 of the ZeroMQ book . He has several inspiring suggestions for how to achieve this, and one of them was to merge pull requests automatically if the tests pass. This solves the very real problem of good contributions languishing in pull requests and unmerged side branches, awaiting review that never happens, which is a waste and discourages contributors. Even if we do this, there is plenty of time to review contributors' work after it is merged (all the time in the world), and now we can easily revert any change that causes problems. Because the history is public, and automatically merging their work demonstrates our trust in them, contributors will tend to set themselves high quality standards. I think we are nearly in a position to do this, with tests being run automatically on Travis and James' build bots. I'm working on some code to check that status and automatically close pull requests, or at least comment on them, if everything is OK. So what do you think, is it a good idea? Thanks, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From brendon at netcal.com Mon Aug 31 22:47:02 2015 From: brendon at netcal.com (Brendon Baumgartner) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:47:02 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Merge pull requests automatically In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chris- I think it's a good idea. It seems there aren't enough resources to not auto-accept. Development in this project has been very slow so if it promotes growth, I think it's work the risk. Also, if it becomes a problem, it can be disabled. -BB > -----Original Message----- > From: Boxbackup [mailto:boxbackup-bounces at boxbackup.org] On Behalf Of > Chris Wilson > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 14:14 > To: Box Backup > Subject: [Box Backup] Proposal: Merge pull requests automatically > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > We are going ahead with the migration to Git now. The official > > repository is effective > > immediately. > > And just hours later, we have our first pull request! Thank you Moritz > Strube :) > > At EuroSciPy on Friday, Peter Hintjens (of ZeroMQ) gave a very inspiring > talk about how important the community is for Open Source projects, and > what we can do to help foster a healthy and growing community. He has > written about this in chapter 6 of the ZeroMQ book > . > > He has several inspiring suggestions for how to achieve this, and one of > them was to merge pull requests automatically if the tests pass. This > solves the very real problem of good contributions languishing in > pull requests and unmerged side branches, awaiting review that never > happens, which is a waste and discourages contributors. > > Even if we do this, there is plenty of time to review contributors' work > after it is merged (all the time in the world), and now we can easily > revert any change that causes problems. Because the history is public, > and > automatically merging their work demonstrates our trust in them, > contributors will tend to set themselves high quality standards. > > I think we are nearly in a position to do this, with tests being run > automatically on Travis and James' build bots. I'm working on some code > to > check that status and automatically close pull requests, or at least > comment on them, if everything is OK. So what do you think, is it a good > idea? > > Thanks, Chris. > -- > _____ __ _ > \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | > / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | > \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup