[GRASS-dev] grass-addons on github

[Stefan Blumentrath]

Hi,

Collecting addons in a central repo seems very valuable to me too, for all the reasons Vacslav mentioned.

I am no git expert either, but PRs should not be a big issue to do (unless you are VERY productive). People could merge their own PRs, no? Creating a PR, does not mean it has to be reviewed by another dev, right? In my organization colleagues even usr PRs for repos where they are the only contributor...

I would argue having procedures as equal as possible between addons and core is just beneficial. Less confusion, fewer guidelines to maimtain, possibility to have CI before things are merged, and training for new devs that evolve from addon-dev to core-dev...

Cheers
Stefan


From: Anna Petrášová
Sent: Friday 24 May 15:57
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] grass-addons on github
To: Martin Landa
Cc: Paulo van Breugel, GRASS developers email list




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

pá 24. 5. 2019 v 8:48 odesílatel Paulo van Breugel
<p.vanbreugel at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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/f25026dd/attachment-0001.html>