[GenABEL-dev] Proposal to move to Github
Diego Fabregat
fabregat at aices.rwth-aachen.de
Sat Oct 24 15:07:08 CEST 2015
Hi Lennart (and the others :),
sorry for not replying earlier. As you said, I am perfectly fine
with the idea of migrating OmicABEL to github :)
Best,
Diego
On 24.10.2015 05:27, L.C. Karssen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Looking at the discussion we had on this topic both in the past week and
> back in 2014 I propose the following:
>
> 1) I will migrate OmicABEL and OmicABELnoMM
>
> These two projects have a simple history (no tags, no branches) and
> converting them proved to be easy. Moreover, I seem to be the de facto
> maintainer of OmicABELnoMM and in last year's discussion Diego said he
> liked the idea of moving to Github. Finally, neither of these tools has
> had any bugs filed, so no work needs to be done on that front.
>
> 2) The new location will be Github.
>
> My reason for choosing Github over Bitbucket is mainly based on the
> popularity/dominance of Github.
>
>
>
> Please let me know of any objections. If I don't receive and objections
> in the next couple days I will upload the two Git repositories to Github
> under the GenABEL project flag, starting with OmicABELnoMM.
>
> Once that has been done and shown to work, we should somehow indicate in
> the SVN repo that the code has moved. I was thinking of simply removing
> the code in the /pkg/OmicABEL{,noMM} and replace it with a README that
> points to the Github locations.
> Of course, other suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lennart.
>
> On 19-10-15 23:20, L.C. Karssen 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-devel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>> 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-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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/genabel-devel/attachments/20151024/a217a93a/attachment.html>
More information about the genabel-devel
mailing list