[GeoNode-devel] GNIP-64 Status and Plan

[Tobias Schulmann]

Thanks Travis!

> > * Is the plan still to land dependency updates into master before
> > jumping to Python 3? Does the project prefer Merge Requests under
> > issue #4276, or should we create github issues for each task?
> 
> * That was the plan as I wrote it, but if there is a different way
> you want to do it, I don't mind. It was just a guideline, not a rule
> - with the spreadsheet laying out groups of tasks it will be easier
> to work them in parallel I think. I am unsure about the second
> question and defer to longer members of the community.
It's a good plan, was just making sure we're not doing the wrong thing.


> * I'm not sure the difference of this to the previous question, but
> how I imagine doing it is creating a main "python3-update" branch,
> and merging each "python3-update-dependency" branch in when it the
> dependency is updated for Python 3.7+ compatibility and confirmed
> working. In this case, I would imagine "python3-update" to
> continually rebase off master to keep it up to date; however, maybe
> just using master itself is better if this is the community's main
> task right now.
I'm not sure which approach is the best here, would be good to get
guidance on. We have a few dependencies ready to go that we'd love to
create MRs for :-)

> * This one is not for me to say :)
I'm a bit worried about creating and maintaining a fork, but happy to
go with whatever the community decides :)

- Tobi




On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 09:15 -0800, Travis Brundage wrote:
> Hey Tobias,
> Glad to hear about upcoming contributions. I will try to answer some
> of your questions:
> * That was the plan as I wrote it, but if there is a different way
> you want to do it, I don't mind. It was just a guideline, not a rule
> - with the spreadsheet laying out groups of tasks it will be easier
> to work them in parallel I think. I am unsure about the second
> question and defer to longer members of the community.
> * I'm not sure the difference of this to the previous question, but
> how I imagine doing it is creating a main "python3-update" branch,
> and merging each "python3-update-dependency" branch in when it the
> dependency is updated for Python 3.7+ compatibility and confirmed
> working. In this case, I would imagine "python3-update" to
> continually rebase off master to keep it up to date; however, maybe
> just using master itself is better if this is the community's main
> task right now.
> * This one is not for me to say :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Travis
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:08 PM Tobias Schulmann <
> tobias at catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> > As mentioned on github we have a few developers coming up to speed
> > with GeoNode and picking tasks from the spreadsheet on 
> > https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/issues/4276
> > 
> > Apologies for the amount of questions to follow, but wanting to
> > make sure we're not crossing over with anyone else working on the
> > issue currently:
> > 
> > * Is the plan still to land dependency updates into master before
> > jumping to Python 3? Does the project prefer Merge Requests under
> > issue #4276, or should we create github issues for each task?
> > * Travis mentioned on a previous thread the plan from there is to
> > brute force the 2to3 script and fix any issues from there? Are we
> > all going to do this separately or have it on a central branch?
> > * Can we get project write access to the project for a few folks
> > after they signed the contributor's agreement? What's the best way
> > to organise this?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > geonode-devel mailing list
> > 
> > geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> > 
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geonode-devel
> > 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geonode-devel/attachments/20191121/939d5788/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geonode-devel/attachments/20191121/939d5788/attachment.sig>