Cor Bosman wrote:

...

Hey devs, wondering if you have ever considered moving the repository to github. Ive been working on some projects on github lately and it's so much nicer than SVN they don't even compare.

This request came up fairly often recently and yes, we'll move to git anytime soon. But instead of moving to github we'll run our own git repository together with trac. Once the deails have been sorted out, we'll announce more about the switch. Please stay tuned for updates…

Im happy and disappointed :) Github has some visual tools that are just mind-blowing. I really like the Network Graph and the easy way you can fork a project and then request a pull. That way a dev can work on part of the project on his own, and when he's done tell the original project that a merge is waiting with just a few easy clicks.

Cor

List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/ BT/aba52c80

Am 11.02.2012 um 17:05 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems):

On the downside though, github is in the ever so licensing and patent friendly US of A.

You could setup gitorious [1]. This has some features of github like nice pull requests and is open source. But still +1 for github.

[1] https://gitorious.org/gitorious/

--- 8< --- detachments --- 8< --- The following attachments have been detached and are available for viewing. http://detached.gigo.com/rc/TC/KB9wJwsr/signature.asc Only click these links if you trust the sender, as well as this message. --- 8< --- detachments --- 8< ---

List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/ BT/aba52c80

We would indeed be running gitorious for Thomas, so that he could administer the users / ssh keys allowed to push to such-and-such branches himself.

So does that mean only specific people can use the interface?

cor

List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/ BT/aba52c80

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:20, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) vanmeeuwen@kolabsys.com wrote:

On 2012-02-11 17:43, Cor Bosman wrote:

...

...

We would indeed be running gitorious for Thomas, so that he could administer the users / ssh keys allowed to push to such-and-such branches himself.

So does that mean only specific people can use the interface?

gitorious - if that's what Thomas wants, and he's making the decisions around here ;-) - allows git:// just as much as ssh:// (in the git@host:repo.git fashion), and granular control to committing to branches (stable vs. development vs. topic branches vs. etc.). The web interface though, which is what you are talking about, is where the features are. It uses a different push url to push out a patch for review, essentially creating a new working copy of the repository on the server. Public (anonymous) and/or private (authenticated) access being provided -should Thomas want either or both- is not the issue.

I totally see the benefits of the feature-rich github platform and providing an easy way to fork and push back commits would hopefully encourage more contributors. Currently the licensing and patent concerns of an USA-hosted github shouldn't bother us too much. That said, our current SVN server is also located in the US of A anyways. Using gitorious on a privately hosted server would be an option as well but it obviously doesn't provide as much of the social coding features as github does.

I'd definitely like to keep trac for wiki, bug tracking and roadmap planning but AFAIK it can easily connect to github.

Any other pros and cons are very welcome!

~Thomas _______________________________________________ List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/ BT/aba52c80

Hello again

Any final objections against moving to github? I know that the license situation is not perfect but nevertheless I don't see any serious problems arising from that and the benefits of the github platform weigh more.

Cheers, Thomas

Thomas Bruederli wrote:

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:20, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) vanmeeuwen@kolabsys.com wrote:

...

On 2012-02-11 17:43, Cor Bosman wrote:

...

...

We would indeed be running gitorious for Thomas, so that he could administer the users / ssh keys allowed to push to such-and-such branches himself.

So does that mean only specific people can use the interface?

gitorious - if that's what Thomas wants, and he's making the decisions around here ;-) - allows git:// just as much as ssh:// (in the git@host:repo.git fashion), and granular control to committing to branches (stable vs. development vs. topic branches vs. etc.). The web interface though, which is what you are talking about, is where the features are. It uses a different push url to push out a patch for review, essentially creating a new working copy of the repository on the server. Public (anonymous) and/or private (authenticated) access being provided -should Thomas want either or both- is not the issue.

I totally see the benefits of the feature-rich github platform and providing an easy way to fork and push back commits would hopefully encourage more contributors. Currently the licensing and patent concerns of an USA-hosted github shouldn't bother us too much. That said, our current SVN server is also located in the US of A anyways. Using gitorious on a privately hosted server would be an option as well but it obviously doesn't provide as much of the social coding features as github does.

I'd definitely like to keep trac for wiki, bug tracking and roadmap planning but AFAIK it can easily connect to github.

Any other pros and cons are very welcome!

~Thomas

Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote:

On 2012-03-21 8:39, Thomas Bruederli wrote:

...

Hello again

Any final objections against moving to github?

No objections - if you need help making the initial conversion and checking / making sure everything is in working order, please let me know, I have some experience converting repositories from SVN/CVS/HG to GIT.

Thanks a lot for the offer. I'm currently playing around with svn2git but haven't succeeded yet.

Perhaps this conversion allows us some time to think about where core plugins (and perhaps even third-party plugins) reside as well - the plugins currently reside in a separate directory in trunk/plugins/ and, if I'm not mistaken, are then copied into a branch/ or tags/ directory to become part of core...?

Yes, the current structure is not optimal because plugins reside in their own directory and are linked to the roundcubemail directory using svn:externals.

Perhaps the contents of roundcubemail/* can/should be moved to the root folder, or plugins/ should be moved to the roundcubemail/. folder - or, the plugins could reside in a different git repository altogether, perhaps with additional people having access to commit...

I agree. What we currently have in trunk/roundcubemail should become root in master and trunk/plugins should go into their final destination folder in root. All the rest that still lingers around in trunk can be ignored for now and should then go into separate repositories later on.

There's one development branch (devel-framework) which has to be transferred as well. And tags of course should become, well, tags.

Let me know if you want to consider any options in terms of structuring the directory tree - it's easiest to do it during the conversion from SVN to GIT before pushing it out to the new GIT repository.

I'll definitely get back to you 'cause I'm still a git-rookie.

Thanks! Thomas

Hello devs

We're preparing the migration from your SVN repository to github. In order to keep the history of our commits accurate we have to build an authors mapping table which translates svn user names to github users. Therefore I'd like all active developers to register an account at github and send me their github username and email address registered there.

If you're a retired developer who has/had commit permission and if you want to keep your commits alive, please do the same. All authors who I don't have a mapping for will be replaced by devs@roundcube.net.

Stay tuned for more information about the migration.

Cheers, Thomas

Thomas Bruederli wrote:

Hello again

Any final objections against moving to github? I know that the license situation is not perfect but nevertheless I don't see any serious problems arising from that and the benefits of the github platform weigh more.

Cheers, Thomas

On 2012-02-11 15:43, Cor Bosman wrote:

Im happy and disappointed :) Github has some visual tools that are just mind-blowing. I really like the Network Graph and the easy way you can fork a project and then request a pull. That way a dev can work on part of the project on his own, and when he's done tell the original project that a merge is waiting with just a few easy clicks.

FWIW, I've also suggested to Thomas, Trac be exchanged with perhaps something like Redmine. There's plenty of options here, but it seems Trac serves Roundcube's current need for Wiki/Ticketing/Source Code Browsing, *but* for the fact its current installation is backed by SQLite and not MySQL.

This, or that, and such-and-such, I'll be working on to get resolved, together with Thomas.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen