Move to GitHub
#1
Moving to GitHub seems like a nice idea at the moment. GitHub is very nice for converting projects from SVN, because you can use SVN just like you used to and it will be reflected in the master git copy on GitHub. Many new developers are also not very good at SVN so git might be easier.

It could also replace the current issue system and wiki with it's own integrated ones, as well as providing a centralised account and contribution hub.

The Pull Request feature is also very nice, no more diffs and no more adding people to the repository unless they're required Smile

I hope you consider this carefully but it seems a good idea to me Smile
Reply
Thanks given by: tigerw , tonibm19
#2
(07-26-2013, 07:26 PM)bearbin Wrote: Many new developers are also not very good at SVN so git might be easier.

Are you SERIOUS? Svn is so much easier to grasp than git, it took me about two days to become an svn pro; i'm still struggling with git basics after two years of using it and keep messing up my repo regularly.

Another thing I don't like about git is that there's no way to tell from two revision identifiers, which one is earlier. svn revision numbers are much better suited for this. The nightly build system will be broken, the bug reports will be difficult to read (for the developers), ...

I've heard both a lot of praise and a lot of criticism on the "pull request" feature. In the very least, it makes one person extremely busy with managing all those pulls and merges rather than coding.

Also, is it even possible for multiple people to manage the same repository on GitHub? I don't want to have a separate repository for me and having to sync FakeTruth's or Keyboard's or STR's or anyone else's regular changes.

Git and GitHub, in my opinion, add to the already-too-bad project fragmentation in the open-source realm. Instead of contributing to one master repository, everyone clones and branches their own, so in the end, we have two million linux distributions, a thousand MCServers, ... , each differing from the other by one little change that the branch author wanted to do but couldn't patch in the master. Then when anyone searches for the canonical source of a program, they can't find it; everyone uses different incompatible versions, etc.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
You can add as many people to the repository as you like, just pull requests are the way you're _supposed_ to do it.

There are 2 main workflows: everybody works on their own branch on one master repo, then submits a PR back to master, which is OK, but requires everybody to be a contributor to the repo. The other one is everyone has a fork, does their changes there then submits a PR back to the canonical upstream. You can either just immediately approve the PR, or wait for other people to comment on it.

The problem with revision identifiers in git is solved with the use of tags. With it's distributed nature, it's impossible for every commit to be in an order, but you can put a tag on the master and then refer back to that. So you could say tag 0.167 instead of r167. You don't really need to refer to revision numbers very often either but you can use tags if you want.

It's also easy to differentiate between the canonical "master" and any forks. The master would have the most forks, stars and also would be named MCServer/MCServer instead of blargh/MCServer making it easier to see.

Also, please do remember that you can continue to use SVN exactly as you have been (moving to the git way is better, but not required) for as long as you like. All you have to do is change the URL of your origin to the github project. If you don't like git, just use SVN.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
I also think that MCServer on GitHub would be nice. I dont know C++ but more people would see the project and would be able to contribute easily
Combustible lemons and potato batteries, that's the future.Big Grin
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
IF GitHub supports the mode that multiple developers can take care of a single (upstream) repo, then I guess I'll be alright with the move. Depends on FakeTruth now. We could, of course, move without him, but it would be impolite in the very leastBig Grin He's the original author, after all.

Also, the commits in the SVN reference FlySpray issues, so it would be a good idea to keep the FlySpray alive, even if read-only. Or at least mirror its data somewhere read-only, so that the issues can be found by their IDs.

Oh, and I'd need somebody to help me fix the windows nightbuild scripts and, while at it, find a way to include the commit ID in the source so that it can be logged, that'd be great.
Reply
Thanks given by: tonibm19
#6
Sounds great! I think the way to go about it (if Faketruth agrees) is to make an account called MCServer and then use git-svn to import the repo.

Making the FS read-only would be a good idea Smile The Nightbuild scripts should also be easy to fix.

There already seems to be an account on Github called MCServer, so if anybody here owns it it would be great if they turned it into an organization (it's free and you can add as many people as you like)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
Now there's also a mc-server account that is an organization, created today. Alright, spill it, whodunnit? Smile
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
I made itTongue

if you tell me your github username I can add you as an owner, but MCServer (the official name of the project, AFAIK) would be better if one of us owns it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
Or we can make the dash in the name official Smile

My github account name is madmaxoft.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
Ok, added Smile
Reply
Thanks given by:




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)