[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Chris Lasher]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Peter <biopython at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>

Peter et al.,

I started off writing an email about why I think hosting at GitHub or
Launchpad is a better idea, but it got a bit verbose, so I just wrote
up a blog post instead. (Besides, links and images are more fun, and
make the intarwebs go 'round.) Please see
http://igotgenes.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-biopython-needs-to-move-to-github.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/a9o7ae

Chris