[Qgis-psc] GH move

Luigi Pirelli luipir at gmail.com
Tue Jun 5 01:39:32 PDT 2018 

I agre seems that nothing is changed... just changed propriety of a closed
platform. We should only have a plan B in case they decide to change
licences and politics,

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
*
https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************

On 5 June 2018 at 09:37, Régis Haubourg <regis.haubourg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  +1 with all that.
>
>
> The most pragmatic issue with Github is that issue management is stored in
> their servers only, and extracting them properly is not so easy if you need
> to keep all references, history of comments, authors and so on.
>
> That is  one of the strong reasons not to migrate issues to GitHub in a
> hurry. The only mature alternative, and allowing us to keep the ownership
> and hosting of our issues would be Gitlab, besides continuing with redmine
> of course.
>
> Moving to gitlab is a big task for sure, we need to keep users, issues,
> pull request history, issue referencing and last but not the least,
> Continuous integration.
>
> Gitlab has it all, but the migration process needs to be totally clean
> before we jump into it. I like the idea of having a way out of Github in
> case things go wrong. They are already wrong to me concerning the issue
> management in fact.
>
> So no hurry at all clearly. But let's keep trying to tackle all migration
> obstacles. We submitted a grant application to make a true prototype, that
> would help a lot.
>
> Best regards
>
> Régis
>
>
>
>
> 2018-06-05 9:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Duivenvoorde <rdmailings at duif.net>:
>
>>
>> Please, no panic, no stress :-)
>>
>> Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
>> negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
>> meeting)...
>>
>> As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
>> looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
>> our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
>> code to move!
>>
>> We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
>> behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
>> not as high anymore.
>>
>> Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
>> invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
>> Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.
>>
>> The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
>> created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
>> decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
>> + research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
>> available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'
>>
>> My conclusions:
>> - nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
>> a negative way
>> - it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
>> - if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
>> - it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
>> (parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
>> - we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
>> Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
>> to be used in debugging/coding/features).
>>
>> Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Duivenvoorde
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>> > Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
>> > behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
>> > just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <denis.rouzaud at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:denis.rouzaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >     > Hi all,
>> >     >
>> >     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>> >     >
>> >     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>> >
>> >     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>> >     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the
>> ownership
>> >     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>> >     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>> >     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>> >
>> >     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to
>> Github.
>> >     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see
>> if it is
>> >     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab
>> (code,
>> >     > tracker, CI).
>> >     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the
>> issues
>> >     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>> >     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>> >     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration,
>> but it is
>> >     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the
>> code/bug
>> >     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>> >
>> >     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this
>> change
>> >     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>> >     clarify here.)
>> >
>> >     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>> >     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>> >     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>> >     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>> >     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>> >     because of it!
>> >
>> >     Nyall
>> >
>> >     >
>> >     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>> >     personnal
>> >     > relation with MS ;)
>> >     >
>> >     > Best wishes,
>> >     > Denis
>> >     >
>> >     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:madmanwoo at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>> >     >>
>> >     >> Hey,
>> >     >>
>> >     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>> >     pain.  MS
>> >     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>> >     the Ballmer
>> >     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>> >     are and not
>> >     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>> >     could have
>> >     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>> >     suspect it
>> >     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>> >     >>
>> >     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>> >     jumping ship
>> >     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>> >     >>
>> >     >> - Nathan
>> >     >>
>> >     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>> >     <cavallini at faunalia.it <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>>
>> >     >> wrote:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> Hi all.
>> >     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably
>> fast?
>> >     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our
>> server.
>> >     >>> Opinions?
>> >     >>> Cheers.
>> >     >>> --
>> >     >>> Sorry for being short
>> >     >>> _______________________________________________
>> >     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> >     >>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>> >     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>> >     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> >     >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>> >     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     > _______________________________________________
>> >     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>> >     > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>> >     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Qgis-psc mailing list
>> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180605/eec804cb/attachment.html>

More information about the Qgis-psc mailing list