[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Peter]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Bartek Wilczynski
<bartek at rezolwenta.eu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Chris Lasher <chris.lasher at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Peter <biopython at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Another option to consider would be to switch to running git on
>>> biopython.org, but use the git-cvsserver tool to provide an emulated
>>> CVS server on top of the git repository.  This sounds possible in
>>> theory, and would be nice for any "old fashioned" biopython developers
>>> because is should be fairly transparent - they can continue to treat
>>> it as CVS and just work on the main trunk.  This would require someone
>>> competent to do the conversion and alter the server setup - we'd have
>>> to talk to the OBF team about this.  However, if anyone has first hand
>>> experience on git-cvsserver perhaps they could comment on weather this
>>> sounds like a good plan or not.
>>
>> I must be missing something, Peter. Why would BioPython continue to
>> operate with CVS? I suppose I just really hope to see BioPython
>> running with something other than CVS, and I'd really like to see it
>> go either under Bazaar or Git.

I'm warming to the idea of git, and had noticed git includes the
optional git-cvsserver tool which emulates a CVS server while using
git underneath.  I was wondering if anyone had first hand experience
of this.  If we did move from CVS to git (still hosted on
biopython.org), this would seem to offer a nice migration path for of
our "old school" CVS developers - they can carry on as usual.  Of
course, if none of us care about having to learn a new interface, then
a simple switch would be less hassle to setup.  For the server side of
things, we'll need to talk to the OBF team about any such move - as
far as I know they've only managed CVS to SVN migrations in the past.

Peter

> Hi Chris,
>
> The idea is to do the switch in two steps:
> - first we still have the main branch in CVS while we have git and/or
> bzr branches synchronized with it for people to branch and contribute
> - If this works nicely, we will switch to one of these systems
> completely (while possibly keeping the other branch in sync, but this
> is not yet decided)

That does seem like a good plan.  Of course, there is the related
issue of where we host the official repository (externally, e.g. on
github or lauchpad) or in house (on biopython.org).  I favour keeping
the official repository on biopython.org but this will require OBF
technical support (do we have the expertise within Biopython? Bartek?
Chris?).

> The first step is to some extent operational (I'm currently busy with
> other stuff, but I'll get arround it hopefully this weekend), but the
> second step requires decision on our side (git or bzr?) and action on
> the side of OBF (there is no git or bazar installed on obf servers).

There is also the previously semi-agreed solution of switching from
CVS to SVN on biopython.org, but this would be only a gradual
improvement.  I gather there are mature tools for using git+svn
together, so it should be better than using git+cvs together.  Other
than meaning all the OBF hosted projects are on SVN (I think we are
the last still on CVS), this is beginning to seem a bit pointless.

Peter