[GRASS-dev] grass-addons on github

[Paulo van Breugel]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:57 PM Anna Petrášová <kratochanna at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

I am personally in favor of a central repository, and I think you provided
some important arguments in favor. It will require (for me) some time to
get to know the peculiarities of git, especially as it seems it is easy to
do something wrong.


>
> 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/20190524/372201a2/attachment.html>