[Biopython-dev] biopython on github

[Peter]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bartek Wilczynski
<bartek at rezolwenta.eu.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Peter <biopython at maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Brad Chapman <chapmanb at 50mail.com> wrote:
>>> - 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.
>
> It is possible, but I don't know if we should do this. To some extent
> having too much choice might be problematic...

True.

> We've done some tests on both bzr and git and it seems that both
> can do the job for us. I assume, that the purpose of "test-driving"
> instead of directly switching to git is to give us a possibility to go
> back in case things go really bad. But I don't think it's a likely
> event. Bigger projects are using git (or bzr) and doing fine, so
> we shouldn't have problems either.

Well yes, having a fall back plan during this migration is essential.

I do think there is a separate need for "test driving" for those of us with
Biopython CVS access how don't have personally experience with git
(or github).  Making the switch before then would be a very bad idea.

I personally need to make time to play with git and github, doing a
couple of *real* branches and merges.  I hope to so this week, some
of the changes I'd like to do for Biopython 1.50 would make good
candidates... but this is time that might otherwise be spent on bug
fixes, documentation etc.  And there is of course my real job too... ;)

Related to this, what OS and version of git are you (Bartel and Giovanni) using?

> On the other hand I don't expect that having the possibility to
> test-drive two options is going to make the decision any easier.
> I don't expect too many people to try both options and even if it
> happens I don't think there will be a clear acclamation that one
> is better than the other.

I agree.

> Honestly, we can't expect that all developers will learn two tools
> just to help us choose... Even though I was myself one of the
> proponents of switching to bzr.
> I think that we should focus on one option and git seems to be the one
> with bigger mind share among biopythonistas.
> So I would vote for dropping the discussion on bzr and focusing on
> making sure that noone is left behind with their
> problems during the (possibly not too long) transition to git.

I'm happy with dropping discussion on bzr, in favour of git.

(As an aside I always liked the term biopythoneers, but biopythonistas
is fun too.)

>> 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?
>
> Yes, we have now the biopython branch on github synchronized with CVS
> on an hourly basis.
> There is no problem with synchronizing a branch on launchpad in the
> same script, but I didn't do it for reasons explained above.

OK.  Do you want to make sure your Launchpad branch is clearly labeled
as not current?

> Well, If everyone will be able to use git I'd say it's a success. We
> don't need a perfect solution. We want to move to _a_ distributed
> version control system.

Well, I suspect there are some silent contributors who don't care
either way - its not perfect, but CVS works well enough.  Better
the devil you know ... ;)

> ...
> There is one difference between moving to sourceforge and moving to git.
> With git, it is much less of a problem to switch hosting... So I think that we
> need to worry less about git hosting than we would need to worry about
> cvs (or svn for that matter).

That is another good reason to pick git.

Peter