[Qgis-psc] GH move

Matthias Kuhn matthias at opengis.ch
Tue Jun 5 02:28:37 PDT 2018 

Thanks everyone,

Looks like there is a quite an agreement that we do not require to take
any immediate steps.
I'm glad to see that we don't bind resources which can be used otherwise
to this topic.

Matthias

On 06/05/2018 10:57 AM, Marco Bernasocchi wrote:
> Thanks Richard for the great summary and pragmatic approach. As we
> discussed yesterday in the PSC meeting the change of ownership does not
> influence the decision to move or not to Gitlab.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marco
> 
> 
> On 05.06.2018 09:16, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
>> 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
>

More information about the Qgis-psc mailing list