[mapserver-dev] move to github ?

Alan Boudreault aboudreault at mapgears.com
Tue Mar 20 10:40:45 PDT 2012

Thanks Thomas for pointing us all those interesting points.

For my part, I totally agree with the move and it's clear to me that 
we'll have to do it a day anyway. I'm still not convinced about github 
though. I think we should take a closer look at rhodecode (as pointed by 


On 12-03-20 01:23 PM, thomas bonfort wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 17:32, Lime, Steve D (DNR)
> <Steve.Lime at state.mn.us>  wrote:
>> I'm kind of in the same boat as Frank and am not up on the differences and/or benefits of one versus the other. Seems like that's a worthy discussion...
> I'll try to give some points which are the most important to me. I'm
> far from knowing git well enough to list all of them so if others want
>   to chime in please do.
> git alone (without github):
> - you get the whole project history, without needing to go online
> - offline commits mean you can much more easily create revision points
> when you're on the road and are working on multiple tasks. I can't
> count the number of experimental patches I have thrown away because I
> needed to fall back to a clean trunk when fixing an urgent ticket.
> - the workflow is somewhat changed: you create a branch (no need to be
> online) as soon as you start working on a new feature, or on fixing a
> given ticket. Switching from one branch to another is done instantly,
> which means you can work on parallel tasks very easily, without
> risking that your changes interfere with one another. three way merges
> make merging code from one branch into another much less painfull than
> with svn+patch
> - all this means that we also don't have to go through the
> feature-freeze where all development is halted in trunk while we
> release. You just merge back the fixes of the release branch back into
> the trunk (called master by convention).
> github:
> - pull requests (along with easy branches) make applying user-supplied
> fixes much easier.
> - code commenting (add comments directly aside a specific line in a
> changeset) makes collaboration much lighter than having to create a
> full email recapitulating the context.
> - online code edition, typically for quickly committing a typo fix.
> Aside from that, all the people I know who have switched from trac+svn
> to git+github would never move back to the old solution. The git
> learning curve is quite steep (although using it the same as svn isn't
> very challenging) but I think very well worth it. Of course, that is
> provided you hack frequently on the code.
> --
> thomas
>> Steve
>> ________________________________________
>> From: mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Frank Warmerdam [warmerdam at pobox.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:39 PM
>> To: thomas bonfort
>> Cc: MapServer Dev Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] move to github ?
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:52 AM, thomas bonfort
>> <thomas.bonfort at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> any other options? what are your thoughts?
>> Thomas,
>> Since you ask - I'm happy with the way things are!
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapserver-dev mailing list
>> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev

Alan Boudreault

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list