Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #101128 > unrolled thread

Re: We will be moving to GitHub

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: We will be moving to GitHub Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-01-01 19:24 -0500
    Re: We will be moving to GitHub Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-01 17:28 -0800

#101128 — Re: We will be moving to GitHub

On 1/1/2016 4:08 PM, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:03 PM,  <paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a summary document that discusses the options examined and why
>> others did not meet the requirements? I am -NOT- trying to dredge up
>> arguments about the choice. I am guessing that there have been some.
>
> Easiest would be to look through the archives of the core-workflow
> mailing list: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/

In particular:

  https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html .

>> If this fact-based decision was based solely on the fact that the BDFL
>> prefers GitHub, please just say so. It is clear that git is a capable tool.
>
> There were three reasons given in Brett's decision message:
>
>     1. No major distinguishing features between GitHub or GitLab
>
> Note that GitHub and GitLab were the only proposals under
> consideration; nobody else stepped up to champion any other solution.
>
>     2. Familiarity amongst core devs -- and external contributors -- with GitHub

In particular, some inactive contributors who use git and github 
apparently emailed Brett to say that they might re-activate if they 
could use the process they otherwise use all the time instead of 
Python's idiosyncratic workflow.

While the decision might not be my personal first choice, we absolutely 
need more core developers contributing, including reviewing contributed 
patches.

>     3. Guido prefers GitHub
>
> Guido repeatedly stated that his preference should not be taken into
> account.  I believe Brett gave it little weight, but obviously it was
> in his mind.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101129

Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:
> While the decision might not be my personal first choice, we
> absolutely need more core developers contributing, including reviewing
> contributed patches.

Yeah, I'm not delighted by the choice either, but as long as the core
devs have bought in and it doesn't affect non-core devs (occasional
contributors and bug reporters), then whatever.  

FWIW, Scaleway has a 1-click (well, several clicks) Gitlab installer:

https://www.scaleway.com/imagehub/gitlab/

It launches a 3 euro/month ARM dedicated server and deploys Gitlab on
it.

I haven't used Gitlab yet but have been using Gogs (gogs.io) a little.
It's a lighter-weight Github-like thing written in Go, that however is
still missing some important features like pull requests.  I like it
though.  It runs nicely on cheap VPS where Gitlab is a resource hog.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web