[GRASS-dev] grass-addons on github

[Anna Petrášová]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:55 AM Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> pá 24. 5. 2019 v 8:48 odesílatel Paulo van Breugel
> <p.vanbreugel at gmail.com> napsal:
> > I have read about the procedure for contributors to the main grass
> repository. Question is, how are we going to deal with add-ons?
> >
> > Are we working with a central repository (OSGeo/grass-addons) and follow
> the same protocol as for OSGEO/grass. If so, who will be responsible for
> approving pull requests? An alternative more like the old situation is that
> authors will be able to directly commit to the addon repository.
>
> in my opinion requesting PRs for `grass-addons` is maybe overkill. It
>


If we don't care about the history and any mess in the grass-addons
repository, then yes, we don't need pull requests.
But a lot of people who might be contributing there might not be familiar
with the peculiarities of git (since even most core grass devs including me
aren't), so eventually we will end up with a lot of mess, which somebody
will need to clean up. PR is a standard way to work on GitHub, so let's use
it. The same approach as for the main grass repo could be used.


> must be somehow discussed anyway. If we suggest direct commits it's
> important to avoid not needed 'merge from master' commits [1]. The
> workflow must be clear (rebase always) to avoid such situations. It
>

I don't quite get how to use rebase yet, but that's the issue, it seems
that if you use it incorrectly, it can be dangerous.


> was not defined yet. Even suggested workflow related to the main
> repository is not clearly defined [2]. This must be improved in a near
> future.
>
> > Or should add-on authors maintain their own repositories, and will there
> be a way to provide links to the authors repositories in a central place?
>

We did this with couple more complicated addons, we do internal development
in our git and then push it to the main repo when we want. I like the idea
of having all addons in one repository, then you can provide the Windows
binaries for them, that is also an incentive for contributers to put it
there (you get windows binary, hosting of manuals, simple installation).
But I get people want the distributed approach too.

Anna

>
> Would be nice if g.extension (wingrass builds) supports distributed
> personal repos. I can imagine that it could be driven by a metadata
> file stored in central `grass-addons` repo. But someone need to
> implement it (g.extension, manual pages builds and wingrass builds).
> Would be cool.
>
> > With a central repository for all add-ons I guess it will be easier to
> maintain an overview like https://grass.osgeo.org/grass76/manuals/addons/
> and to create the windows binaries?
>
> Sure. But see my notes above.
>
> Ma
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2019-May/092663.html
> [2] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/HowToGit
>
> --
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
> http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20190524/7064dcc4/attachment-0001.html>