GH move

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GH move

pcav
Hi all.
Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
Opinions?
Cheers.
--
Sorry for being short
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Nyall Dawson
On 5 June 2018 at 10:19, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all.
> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
> Opinions?
> Cheers.

Why? Honestly, what's changed from the QGIS project's perspective?

MS have been reasonably open-source friendly over recent years, and in
any case GitHub was always a proprietary platform run by a commercial
entity (vs gitlab, a *mostly-open* platform run by a commercial
entity). I personally can't see why there's been any big reaction at
all to this buy out, or why we would need to move fast on anything.

Nyall


> --
> Sorry for being short
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Nathan Woodrow
In reply to this post by pcav
Hey,

IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of pain.  MS now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of the Ballmer years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we are and not react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that could have bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I suspect it will lead to a lot of good things in the future.

I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but jumping ship just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.

- Nathan

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all.
Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
Opinions?
Cheers.
--
Sorry for being short

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

3nids
Hi all,

Just to bring a bit more context to our project...

Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code, tracker, CI).
Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug tracker) part which might be very tedious.

I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our personnal relation with MS ;)

Best wishes,
Denis

Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey,

IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of pain.  MS now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of the Ballmer years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we are and not react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that could have bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I suspect it will lead to a lot of good things in the future.

I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but jumping ship just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.

- Nathan

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all.
Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
Opinions?
Cheers.
--
Sorry for being short

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Nathan Woodrow
Hmm, is there notes for this move to GitLab meeting because I don't remember seeing it talked about but I have been out of the loop a bit so it might have been me.

If we are already committed to moving, PLEASE make the messaging on the move very clear and it's not in anyway linked to MS buying GitHub because that looks bad on us IMO. 

I still have quite a few concerns moving to GitLab, not that I think Github is better, just that we have working Ci etc on there without spending money, however, I just want to make sure we are not just moving because of MS buying GitHub because that is crazy.

- Nathan

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to bring a bit more context to our project...

Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code, tracker, CI).
Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug tracker) part which might be very tedious.

I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our personnal relation with MS ;)

Best wishes,
Denis

Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey,

IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of pain.  MS now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of the Ballmer years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we are and not react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that could have bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I suspect it will lead to a lot of good things in the future.

I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but jumping ship just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.

- Nathan

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all.
Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
Opinions?
Cheers.
--
Sorry for being short

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Nyall Dawson
In reply to this post by 3nids
On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>
> Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.

I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
*when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
accelerated timeline because of this news.

> Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
> Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
> feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
> tracker, CI).
> Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
> There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
> not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
> tracker) part which might be very tedious.

(My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
-- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
clarify here.)

But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
because of it!

Nyall

>
> I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our personnal
> relation with MS ;)
>
> Best wishes,
> Denis
>
> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of pain.  MS
>> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of the Ballmer
>> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we are and not
>> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that could have
>> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I suspect it
>> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>>
>> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but jumping ship
>> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>>
>> - Nathan
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all.
>>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>>> Opinions?
>>> Cheers.
>>> --
>>> Sorry for being short
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

3nids
In reply to this post by Nathan Woodrow


Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:56, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hmm, is there notes for this move to GitLab meeting because I don't remember seeing it talked about but I have been out of the loop a bit so it might have been me

there is a one hour video...
.

If we are already committed to moving, PLEASE make the messaging on the move very clear and it's not in anyway linked to MS buying GitHub because that looks bad on us IMO. 

I still have quite a few concerns moving to GitLab, not that I think Github is better, just that we have working Ci etc on there without spending money, however, I just want to make sure we are not just moving because of MS buying GitHub because that is crazy.

yes, nothing comes from Microsoft here. 
As mentionned the original point, was moving away from Redmine for which I fight a bit ;)
And then many raised voices towards Gitlab mainly for open vs closed source solutions.





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Nathan Woodrow
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>
> Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.

I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
*when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
accelerated timeline because of this news.

> Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
> Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
> feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
> tracker, CI).
> Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
> There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
> not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
> tracker) part which might be very tedious.

(My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
-- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
clarify here.)

But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
because of it!

Nyall

>
> I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our personnal
> relation with MS ;)
>
> Best wishes,
> Denis
>
> Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of pain.  MS
>> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of the Ballmer
>> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we are and not
>> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that could have
>> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I suspect it
>> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>>
>> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but jumping ship
>> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>>
>> - Nathan
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all.
>>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>>> Opinions?
>>> Cheers.
>>> --
>>> Sorry for being short
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Alexander Bruy
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Fully agree with Nyall and others. There is no need to move from GitHub
just because of these news.

2018-06-05 3:26 GMT+03:00 Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]>:

> On 5 June 2018 at 10:19, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>> Opinions?
>> Cheers.
>
> Why? Honestly, what's changed from the QGIS project's perspective?
>
> MS have been reasonably open-source friendly over recent years, and in
> any case GitHub was always a proprietary platform run by a commercial
> entity (vs gitlab, a *mostly-open* platform run by a commercial
> entity). I personally can't see why there's been any big reaction at
> all to this buy out, or why we would need to move fast on anything.
>
> Nyall
>
>
>> --
>> Sorry for being short
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



--
Alexander Bruy
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Andreas Neumann-4

Hi,

I also think that the fact that Microsoft bought Github is of no particular relevance to us. The move to Gitlab (as decided in Madeira) should be properly planned and should not result in a lack of functionality and availability compared with the current Github solution.

Microsoft is way more open source friendly than other big companies (e.g. Oracle) these days. I would be worried if Oracle bought Github as Oracle screwed up just about every Open Source project they got involved with (OpenOffice, Solaris, MySQL, you name it) - which resulted in forks of the projects.

Greetings,

Andreas

On 2018-06-05 04:55, Alexander Bruy wrote:

Fully agree with Nyall and others. There is no need to move from GitHub
just because of these news.

2018-06-05 3:26 GMT+03:00 Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]>:
On 5 June 2018 at 10:19, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all.
Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
Opinions?
Cheers.

Why? Honestly, what's changed from the QGIS project's perspective?

MS have been reasonably open-source friendly over recent years, and in
any case GitHub was always a proprietary platform run by a commercial
entity (vs gitlab, a *mostly-open* platform run by a commercial
entity). I personally can't see why there's been any big reaction at
all to this buy out, or why we would need to move fast on anything.

Nyall


--
Sorry for being short
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Anita Graser
In reply to this post by Alexander Bruy
+1 to everyone saying that there is no need to move from GitHub because of MS.

Anita



On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM Alexander Bruy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fully agree with Nyall and others. There is no need to move from GitHub
just because of these news.

2018-06-05 3:26 GMT+03:00 Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]>:
> On 5 June 2018 at 10:19, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>> Opinions?
>> Cheers.
>
> Why? Honestly, what's changed from the QGIS project's perspective?
>
> MS have been reasonably open-source friendly over recent years, and in
> any case GitHub was always a proprietary platform run by a commercial
> entity (vs gitlab, a *mostly-open* platform run by a commercial
> entity). I personally can't see why there's been any big reaction at
> all to this buy out, or why we would need to move fast on anything.
>
> Nyall
>
>
>> --
>> Sorry for being short
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



--
Alexander Bruy
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Alessandro Pasotti-2
I feel like Anita, not that I like MS in general but that's not a reason strong enough to react, at least for now.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Anita Graser <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to everyone saying that there is no need to move from GitHub because of MS.

Anita



On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM Alexander Bruy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fully agree with Nyall and others. There is no need to move from GitHub
just because of these news.

2018-06-05 3:26 GMT+03:00 Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]>:
> On 5 June 2018 at 10:19, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>> Opinions?
>> Cheers.
>
> Why? Honestly, what's changed from the QGIS project's perspective?
>
> MS have been reasonably open-source friendly over recent years, and in
> any case GitHub was always a proprietary platform run by a commercial
> entity (vs gitlab, a *mostly-open* platform run by a commercial
> entity). I personally can't see why there's been any big reaction at
> all to this buy out, or why we would need to move fast on anything.
>
> Nyall
>
>
>> --
>> Sorry for being short
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



--
Alexander Bruy
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Richard Duivenvoorde
In reply to this post by Nathan Woodrow

Please, no panic, no stress :-)

Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
meeting)...

As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
code to move!

We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
not as high anymore.

Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.

The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
+ research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'

My conclusions:
- nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
a negative way
- it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
- if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
- it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
(parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
- we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
to be used in debugging/coding/features).

Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde





On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:

> Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
> behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
> just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>     >
>     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>
>     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
>     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>
>     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
>     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
>     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
>     > tracker, CI).
>     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
>     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
>     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
>     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>
>     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
>     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>     clarify here.)
>
>     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>     because of it!
>
>     Nyall
>
>     >
>     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>     personnal
>     > relation with MS ;)
>     >
>     > Best wishes,
>     > Denis
>     >
>     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>     >>
>     >> Hey,
>     >>
>     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>     pain.  MS
>     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>     the Ballmer
>     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>     are and not
>     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>     could have
>     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>     suspect it
>     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>     >>
>     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>     jumping ship
>     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>     >>
>     >> - Nathan
>     >>
>     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all.
>     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>     >>> Opinions?
>     >>> Cheers.
>     >>> --
>     >>> Sorry for being short
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Régis Haubourg
Hi all,
 +1 with all that.


The most pragmatic issue with Github is that issue management is stored in their servers only, and extracting them properly is not so easy if you need to keep all references, history of comments, authors and so on.

That is  one of the strong reasons not to migrate issues to GitHub in a hurry. The only mature alternative, and allowing us to keep the ownership and hosting of our issues would be Gitlab, besides continuing with redmine of course.

Moving to gitlab is a big task for sure, we need to keep users, issues, pull request history, issue referencing and last but not the least, Continuous integration.

Gitlab has it all, but the migration process needs to be totally clean before we jump into it. I like the idea of having a way out of Github in case things go wrong. They are already wrong to me concerning the issue management in fact. 

So no hurry at all clearly. But let's keep trying to tackle all migration obstacles. We submitted a grant application to make a true prototype, that would help a lot.

Best regards

Régis




2018-06-05 9:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Duivenvoorde <[hidden email]>:

Please, no panic, no stress :-)

Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
meeting)...

As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
code to move!

We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
not as high anymore.

Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.

The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
+ research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'

My conclusions:
- nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
a negative way
- it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
- if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
- it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
(parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
- we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
to be used in debugging/coding/features).

Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde





On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
> behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
> just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>     >
>     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>
>     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
>     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>
>     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
>     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
>     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
>     > tracker, CI).
>     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
>     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
>     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
>     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>
>     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
>     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>     clarify here.)
>
>     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>     because of it!
>
>     Nyall
>
>     >
>     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>     personnal
>     > relation with MS ;)
>     >
>     > Best wishes,
>     > Denis
>     >
>     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>     >>
>     >> Hey,
>     >>
>     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>     pain.  MS
>     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>     the Ballmer
>     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>     are and not
>     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>     could have
>     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>     suspect it
>     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>     >>
>     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>     jumping ship
>     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>     >>
>     >> - Nathan
>     >>
>     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all.
>     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>     >>> Opinions?
>     >>> Cheers.
>     >>> --
>     >>> Sorry for being short
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

ginetto
I agre seems that nothing is changed... just changed propriety of a closed platform. We should only have a plan B in case they decide to change licences and politics,

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************

On 5 June 2018 at 09:37, Régis Haubourg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
 +1 with all that.


The most pragmatic issue with Github is that issue management is stored in their servers only, and extracting them properly is not so easy if you need to keep all references, history of comments, authors and so on.

That is  one of the strong reasons not to migrate issues to GitHub in a hurry. The only mature alternative, and allowing us to keep the ownership and hosting of our issues would be Gitlab, besides continuing with redmine of course.

Moving to gitlab is a big task for sure, we need to keep users, issues, pull request history, issue referencing and last but not the least, Continuous integration.

Gitlab has it all, but the migration process needs to be totally clean before we jump into it. I like the idea of having a way out of Github in case things go wrong. They are already wrong to me concerning the issue management in fact. 

So no hurry at all clearly. But let's keep trying to tackle all migration obstacles. We submitted a grant application to make a true prototype, that would help a lot.

Best regards

Régis




2018-06-05 9:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Duivenvoorde <[hidden email]>:

Please, no panic, no stress :-)

Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
meeting)...

As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
code to move!

We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
not as high anymore.

Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.

The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
+ research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'

My conclusions:
- nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
a negative way
- it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
- if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
- it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
(parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
- we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
to be used in debugging/coding/features).

Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde





On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
> behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
> just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>     >
>     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>
>     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
>     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>
>     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
>     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
>     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
>     > tracker, CI).
>     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
>     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
>     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
>     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>
>     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
>     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>     clarify here.)
>
>     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>     because of it!
>
>     Nyall
>
>     >
>     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>     personnal
>     > relation with MS ;)
>     >
>     > Best wishes,
>     > Denis
>     >
>     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>     >>
>     >> Hey,
>     >>
>     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>     pain.  MS
>     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>     the Ballmer
>     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>     are and not
>     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>     could have
>     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>     suspect it
>     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>     >>
>     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>     jumping ship
>     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>     >>
>     >> - Nathan
>     >>
>     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all.
>     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>     >>> Opinions?
>     >>> Cheers.
>     >>> --
>     >>> Sorry for being short
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Marco Bernasocchi-2
In reply to this post by Richard Duivenvoorde
Thanks Richard for the great summary and pragmatic approach. As we
discussed yesterday in the PSC meeting the change of ownership does not
influence the decision to move or not to Gitlab.

Cheers

Marco


On 05.06.2018 09:16, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:

> Please, no panic, no stress :-)
>
> Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
> negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
> meeting)...
>
> As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
> looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
> our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
> code to move!
>
> We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
> behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
> not as high anymore.
>
> Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
> invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
> Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.
>
> The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
> created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
> decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
> + research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
> available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'
>
> My conclusions:
> - nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
> a negative way
> - it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
> - if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
> - it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
> (parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
> - we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
> Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
> to be used in debugging/coding/features).
>
> Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Duivenvoorde
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>> Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
>> behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
>> just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>     > Hi all,
>>     >
>>     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>>     >
>>     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>>
>>     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>>     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
>>     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>>     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>>     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>>
>>     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
>>     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
>>     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
>>     > tracker, CI).
>>     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
>>     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>>     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
>>     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
>>     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>>
>>     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
>>     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>>     clarify here.)
>>
>>     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>>     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>>     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>>     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>>     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>>     because of it!
>>
>>     Nyall
>>
>>     >
>>     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>>     personnal
>>     > relation with MS ;)
>>     >
>>     > Best wishes,
>>     > Denis
>>     >
>>     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>>     >>
>>     >> Hey,
>>     >>
>>     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>>     pain.  MS
>>     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>>     the Ballmer
>>     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>>     are and not
>>     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>>     could have
>>     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>>     suspect it
>>     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>>     >>
>>     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>>     jumping ship
>>     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>>     >>
>>     >> - Nathan
>>     >>
>>     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>     >> wrote:
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Hi all.
>>     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>>     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>>     >>> Opinions?
>>     >>> Cheers.
>>     >>> --
>>     >>> Sorry for being short
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>     >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>     >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

--
Marco Bernasocchi

QGIS.org Co-chair
http://berna.io

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Thanks everyone,

Looks like there is a quite an agreement that we do not require to take
any immediate steps.
I'm glad to see that we don't bind resources which can be used otherwise
to this topic.

Matthias

On 06/05/2018 10:57 AM, Marco Bernasocchi wrote:

> Thanks Richard for the great summary and pragmatic approach. As we
> discussed yesterday in the PSC meeting the change of ownership does not
> influence the decision to move or not to Gitlab.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
>
> On 05.06.2018 09:16, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
>> Please, no panic, no stress :-)
>>
>> Nobody is forcing us to move, and until something changes in a very
>> negative way, we are not moving (for what I understand from our PSC
>> meeting)...
>>
>> As some more context: the reason that 'we' (as a community) are/were
>> looking into Gitlab, is actually because some members had problems with
>> our issue-tracker/Redmine earlier.... not so much because we wanted our
>> code to move!
>>
>> We also concluded that currently our Redmine instance is
>> behaving/performing OK, so the urge to move to another issue tracker is
>> not as high anymore.
>>
>> Some community members had very good experience with Gitlab, AND
>> invested time into creating scripts to move our issues from Redmine to
>> Gitlab. To also be able to use Gitlab CI it was easiest to also move code.
>>
>> The wiki page (in my view) is not so much a 'Migration *plan*', but more
>> created to do a thorough investigation of what we have to move/do IF we
>> decide to do such a move (to whatever service)... So a thorough write up
>> + research, instead of just yelling 'there are import scripts online
>> available to move issues/code/CI/Webhooks/Wiki/* ....'
>>
>> My conclusions:
>> - nothing will change in a short term now, unless Github is changing in
>> a negative way
>> - it is wise to keep doing research/experiments to alternative services
>> - if something is missing in the wiki page: add it
>> - it is wise to keep the use of (free) services modular, so moving
>> (parts of) our infrastructure to other/own services stays feasible
>> - we have a good running (rather complex) infrastructure currently.
>> Changing it will cost a lot of development time, which then is not going
>> to be used in debugging/coding/features).
>>
>> Happy coding/debugging/QGISsing!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Duivenvoorde
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05-06-18 03:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>>> Remember also moving to another platform leaves some of the community
>>> behind, so anything like this is a long term plan with migration not
>>> just a quick over night becacuse GitHub changed ownership.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 5 June 2018 at 10:49, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]
>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>     > Hi all,
>>>     >
>>>     > Just to bring a bit more context to our project...
>>>     >
>>>     > Decision has been taken during Madeira HF to move to Gitlab.
>>>
>>>     I realise that, and am happy to go along with this group decision
>>>     *when it's all proven possible and is ready to go*. But the ownership
>>>     of GitHub should have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. We
>>>     move when (and if) we can without any regressions, and not on an
>>>     accelerated timeline because of this news.
>>>
>>>     > Original reason was the move of the tbug tracker from Redmine to Github.
>>>     > Many raised their voices for Gitlab and decision was taken to see if it is
>>>     > feasible and reasonnable to move everything at once to Gitlab (code,
>>>     > tracker, CI).
>>>     > Vincent proposed to establish a wiki page for listing all the issues
>>>     > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
>>>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan>
>>>     > There is a proposal in the grant program for doing the migration, but it is
>>>     > not really clear to me if this also integrate the CI (or only the code/bug
>>>     > tracker) part which might be very tedious.
>>>
>>>     (My understanding is that the proposal is for prototyping this change
>>>     -- not implementing the actual change itself. Oslandia staff can
>>>     clarify here.)
>>>
>>>     But I agree... porting the CI would be a HUGE effort. It's thanks
>>>     mostly to your and Matthias' tireless efforts that we have the
>>>     mostly-great CI setup we have today. I can't even begin to estimate
>>>     the number of volunteer weeks of development you both have sunk into
>>>     this, but my continued, wholehearted thanks are extended to you both
>>>     because of it!
>>>
>>>     Nyall
>>>
>>>     >
>>>     > I don't think today's news is affecting our situation, despite our
>>>     personnal
>>>     > relation with MS ;)
>>>     >
>>>     > Best wishes,
>>>     > Denis
>>>     >
>>>     > Le lun. 4 juin 2018 à 20:26, Nathan Woodrow <[hidden email]
>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Hey,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> IMO that would be a silly move for no added benefit and a lot of
>>>     pain.  MS
>>>     >> now is not the MS of old, they are not the open source haters of
>>>     the Ballmer
>>>     >> years like they used to be.  I strongly suggest we stay where we
>>>     are and not
>>>     >> react like that for this.   I trust MS over most companies that
>>>     could have
>>>     >> bought it (if it was Oracle you would have had my support) and I
>>>     suspect it
>>>     >> will lead to a lot of good things in the future.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> I am ok to move to other platforms in future if we need but
>>>     jumping ship
>>>     >> just because MS now own it is not a good reason to move.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> - Nathan
>>>     >>
>>>     >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Cavallini
>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>     >> wrote:
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> Hi all.
>>>     >>> Just read about ms buying GH. Maybe we should react reasonably fast?
>>>     >>> I'd be in favour of migrating to gitlab, preferably on our server.
>>>     >>> Opinions?
>>>     >>> Cheers.
>>>     >>> --
>>>     >>> Sorry for being short
>>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>>     >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>>     >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>>     >>
>>>     >>
>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>>     >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>>>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GH move

pcav
Il 05/06/2018 11:28, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
> Thanks everyone,
>
> Looks like there is a quite an agreement that we do not require to take
> any immediate steps.
> I'm glad to see that we don't bind resources which can be used otherwise
> to this topic.

OK, so all the better - you guys make me feel so old school ;)
Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IT&q=qgis,arcgis
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc