[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Peter]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Brad Chapman <chapmanb at 50mail.com> wrote:
> Hi all;
> It is good to see the discussion around revision control systems;
> Chris and Paulo's posts make some nice points. Source code
> management is an important issue that influences perception of
> Biopython and barriers to contributing.
>
> My two cents on what we should do is:
>
> - Pick a distributed source code management system. My preference
>  is Git, only because it currently has more steam behind it.
>  Git/Bazaar will likely end up being like the VHS/Beta debate.

I would agree git has more mind share, but I have no technical reason
to choose one over the other.

In terms of read only access, having a mirrored trunk branch on both
git (e.g. github) and bazaar (e.g. launchpad) is possible for
evaluation purposes.

> - Test drive use of Git on an official GitHub repository. This would
>  involve a few things ...

Giovanni has shared the github "Biopython" user information so we
(i.e. Biopython) can use that for any official presence on github -
which is great.  Bartek and Giovanni seem to have this working OK.

I think having the latest CVS trunk in Launchpad automatically is
stalled because they (launchpad) can't cope with a simple
username/password for accessing a remote CVS server.  Is that right
Bartek?

> - Evaluate the success of Git. This is easy to measure in terms of
>  new contributors, increased happiness, and what not. At the same
>  time we can monitor how GitHub evolves over time.

It may not be that easy to measure in practice...

> - If successful, talk to the OpenBio team about hosting Git locally.

I have contacted the OBF to ask who we should talk to about this idea
(given it will probably involve server access to install new software
and perhaps changing firewall/port settings).

> Peter, Michiel, et al -- how do you feel?

I'm happy in principle with a switch to git, ideally hosted on
biopython.org (see below).

> I think being cautious with the transition, as Peter recommends, is
> important. I am old enough to remember Sourceforge being new and
> everyone saying how it was stupid not to move there; then over time
> Sourceforge got slow with all the users and people moved
> away from it. This is just to say -- no one knows how GitHub (or
> Launchpad) will evolve. OpenBio is a stable, small, nice community
> and to the extent we can use their resources I believe we should.

I did have that same example in mind - having to depend on a third
party like GitHub, LaunchPad or Sourceforge is great until things go
wrong.  The Open Bio Foundation is much smaller, and while they don't
have 100% uptime either, they are normally very responsive to issues
because they only support a small number of projects.  Of course,
ideally we might have both - an OBF hosted (git) repository on
biopython.org, synced to github for people to enjoy its collaborative
additions.

> Overall, the specifics of the above proposal aren't as important as
> just doing something unambiguous and then evaluating how it works.
> Right now things are a big confusing, which I think could put off
> new developers, who are always welcome.
>
> Looking forward to talking about code instead of revision control,

That would be nice :)

Peter