[GenABEL-dev] Proposal to move to Github
L.C. Karssen
lennart at karssen.org
Mon Oct 19 23:09:41 CEST 2015
Hmm, am I correct that Github allows you to create an 'organisation',
but Bitbucket doesn't?
I just the GenABEL Project on Github [1] some time ago. Bitbucket seems
to have teams, which could work the same way, but if I understand it
correctly you need to pay for teams with more than 5 members. That would
be a definite plus for GitHub.
Lennart.
[1] https://github.com/GenABEL-Project
On 19-10-15 22:43, L.C. Karssen wrote:
> hi Kaiyin,
>
> On 19-10-15 22:28, K. Zhong wrote:
>> Hi, Lennart.
>>
>> Regarding to (2), it¹s possible to start in Bitbucket and then create a
>> mirror in Github painlessly (or vice-versa).
>
> Interesting! I didn't think of that. Thanks for bringing it up.
>
> I do think that for 'communication' purposes it wouldbe best to have one
> 'main/official location' for the packages (either Github or Bitbucket),
> to keep possible confusion to a minimum. Now (almost) all development is
> done on R-forge's SVN. Nice and clean. Given Git's improvements to the
> development process and the fact that Github/Bitucket give a push
> towards social coding I have no objections to have both R-forge and a
> Git repo, but IMHO spreading packages across three platforms doesn't
> sound very good.
>
>> But for published packages a
>> private repo seems unnecessary?
>
> True. I thought maybe a private repo could be used by packages that are
> still under consideration. Or where the authors are not ready yet to
> develop 'in broad daylight' yet. Not really in the GenABEL spirit, but
> we could be open to that.
>
>
> Lennart.
>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kaiyin ZHONG
>> ------------------
>> FMB, Erasmus MC
>> http://kaiyin.co.vu
>> k.zhong at erasmusmc.nl
>> kindlychung at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/10/2015 22:20, "genabel-devel-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org on
>> behalf of L.C. Karssen" <genabel-devel-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
>> on behalf of lennart at karssen.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> With this e-mail I'm digging up a conversation from the past (April/May
>>> 2014). Back then we discussed (see below) the idea of moving (some of)
>>> the GenABEL suite tools to a Git repository like GitHub.
>>>
>>> Since then I have gained more experience with Git and I love it. So I'm
>>> all for giving it a try. This brings up the following questions on which
>>> I'd like to hear your opinion:
>>>
>>> 1) Which package(s) do we migrate first?
>>>
>>> 2) Where do we migrate to?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding 1): I think OmicABEL and OmicABELnoMM are the easiest to start
>>> with. They have a linear history (no branches etc.) so conversion is
>>> straightforward. I'd love to migrate ProbABEL, but I've spent several
>>> hours in vain trying to keep the branches and history correct. More time
>>> needed there (if someone has experience in SVN -> Git migration, please
>>> let me know).
>>>
>>> Regarding 2): Either GitHub or BitBucket is an option for me. I have
>>> some experience with both. Github is more popular/the de facto standard,
>>> but the nice thing about Bitbucket is that it allows private
>>> repositories (for up to 5 collaborators) also in their free plan. Not
>>> sure if this is of any use for GenABEL.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once we reach agreement on 1 and 2 I volunteer to do the migration.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Lennart.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02-05-14 10:27, Yurii Aulchenko wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Diego Fabregat
>>>> <fabregat at aices.rwth-aachen.de <mailto:fabregat at aices.rwth-aachen.de>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of moving to git. I have no experience with github,
>>>> but I'm using git on an almost daily basis (we have our own git
>>>> server in our group for code and papers). I would have no problem in
>>>> uploading OmicABEL to a git repo.
>>>>
>>>> Does dropping R-forge have a (bad) impact on the visibility of the
>>>> project or on the user experience (e.g., installation of R
>>>> packages)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion - not really (visibility: I do not think we get many users
>>>> because they've found us at r-forge; also we can keep the account and
>>>> make links from there; as for installation, the argument partly holds
>>>> only for R-packages). What we need to think is of course how we
>>>> keep/move all parts such as a) code b) trackers c) project docs such as
>>>> code guidelines
>>>>
>>>> To me it seems that the idea to migrate few packages first is the most
>>>> reasonable; few are likely to stay at r-forge for long
>>>>
>>>> Yurii
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/28/2014 10:09 PM, L.C. Karssen wrote:
>>>>> Dear Maarten, dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving to github... Hmm... That is quite a decision, so I've
>>>>> renamed the
>>>>> subject to better reflect the discussion. I've also dropped the
>>>>> older
>>>>> e-mails from the bottom of the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> First off, are there any people that have experience with git
>>>>> and/or
>>>>> github? I've got some git experience (still learning), but no real
>>>>> experience with github.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Maarten that SVN is showing its age. As he indicates
>>>>> things
>>>>> like branching are much easier in git. Moreover, since I'm
>>>>> travelling
>>>>> regularly being able to work without internet connection is a pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, moving to git (whether github or elsewhere)
>>>>> means
>>>>> leaving R-forge, which is our well-known infrastructure.
>>>>> Furthermore,
>>>>> such a move operation will cost quite some time, I guess. Moving
>>>>> all
>>>>> bugs, features, etc... If we decide to move we should plan well
>>>>> and not
>>>>> rush. And then the current developers will need to learn git if
>>>>> they
>>>>> don't already know how to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing I think we should definitely do is migrate slowly,
>>>>> package by
>>>>> package. Given that Maarten is positive about such a move and that
>>>>> I am
>>>>> in a bit of limbo but not fully against, it seems logical that
>>>>> ProbABEL
>>>>> is the first package to try such a migration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lennart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-04-14 20:39, Maarten Kooyman wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is easier to use for code review github:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check to get a impression
>>>>>> :https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/1241/files
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should reconsider an other the software version
>>>>>> system: the
>>>>>> current system is not up to date to current usability. Bug
>>>>>> tracking and
>>>>>> branching is quite hard in terms of usability. Please have a look
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> github.com <http://github.com> to get a impression what is
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maarten
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>>>>> L.C. Karssen
>>>>> Utrecht
>>>>> The Netherlands
>>>>>
>>>>> lennart at karssen.org <mailto:lennart at karssen.org>
>>>>> http://blog.karssen.org
>>>>> GPG key ID: A88F554A
>>>>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> genabel-devel mailing list
>>>>> genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
>>>>> <mailto:genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genabel-dev
>>>>> el
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> genabel-devel mailing list
>>>> genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
>>>> <mailto:genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org>
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genabel-deve
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>> Yurii S. Aulchenko
>>>>
>>>> [ LinkedIn <http://nl.linkedin.com/in/yuriiaulchenko> ] [ Twitter
>>>> <http://twitter.com/YuriiAulchenko> ] [ Blog
>>>> <http://yurii-aulchenko.blogspot.nl/> ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> genabel-devel mailing list
>>>> genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genabel-deve
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>>> L.C. Karssen
>>> Utrecht
>>> The Netherlands
>>>
>>> lennart at karssen.org
>>> http://blog.karssen.org
>>> GPG key ID: A88F554A
>>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> genabel-devel mailing list
>> genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
>> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genabel-devel
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> genabel-devel mailing list
> genabel-devel at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genabel-devel
>
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
L.C. Karssen
Utrecht
The Netherlands
lennart at karssen.org
http://blog.karssen.org
GPG key ID: A88F554A
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/genabel-devel/attachments/20151019/3fc6442a/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the genabel-devel
mailing list