git migration

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

git migration

Martin Landa
Hi,

as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
git, see also related survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.

From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.

I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.

See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20

Martin

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Markus Neteler
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:24 PM Martin Landa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
> git, see also related survey
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.
>
> From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
> the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.

I come to the same conclusions.
Importantly, once migrated we can run a mirror in Gitlab.

> I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
> issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.
>
> See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20

I have drafted a document:

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub

Please review and comment.

Markus

--
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
https://grass.osgeo.org
https://courses.neteler.org/blog
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
SBL
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

SBL
Hi,

Two minor non-PSC comment on RFC 6, which generally looks very good to me:

1) One thing I probably would word a bit differently, is the comment on the addon repository, that currently says:
" repository grass-addons
repository for addons (this will become less relevant as people tend to keep their addons in own repositories)"
Here I would say that esp because people are keeping addons in private repositories, it is even more important to simplify contribution to AddOns (and I hope the move to git would help). Because I consider it as highly valuable to have available addons gathered in one place (see amongst others: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3583).

2) Even being among those who voted for gitlab, I have to admit (as hinted earlier) that I would nevertheless come to the same conclusion that github sould be the destination/target (simply for pragmatical reasons). Also, many participants asked for OSGeo projects sticking together. And most of them are on github.
That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to move. Just to acknowledge that,
 a) the decision for github as a target is mainly a pragmatical one (as it is not Free and Open) and following the current majority vote
 b) even OSGeo projects that currently are on GitHub, like QGIS, have an eye on Gitlab [2] based on a feature analysis [see 1]
 c) with 43 participants voting for GitHub, 24 voting for gitlab (pluss 5 voting for gitlab in OSGeo infrastructure) there is still (already?) a significant number of people with different preferences
But again, lets move to git(hub) and try to stay as flexible as possible...

Cheers
Stefan

1: https://about.gitlab.com/devops-tools/github-vs-gitlab.html
2: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan


-----Original Message-----
From: grass-psc <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Markus Neteler
Sent: tirsdag 5. mars 2019 22:49
To: Martin Landa <[hidden email]>
Cc: GRASS PSC list <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:24 PM Martin Landa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
> git, see also related survey
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.
>
> From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
> the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.

I come to the same conclusions.
Importantly, once migrated we can run a mirror in Gitlab.

> I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
> issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.
>
> See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20

I have drafted a document:

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub

Please review and comment.

Markus

--
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software https://grass.osgeo.org https://courses.neteler.org/blog _______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Martin Landa
Hi,

st 6. 3. 2019 v 11:41 odesílatel Stefan Blumentrath
<[hidden email]> napsal:
> That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to move. Just to acknowledge that,

I agree. In the case that we will use Github issue (+wiki) we should
do regular backup download through their API.

Ma

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

NikosAlexandris
In reply to this post by SBL
Hi all, a quick voice as non-core dev,

1. there should be one official GRASS GIS Add-Ons repository

2. there should be a set of minimal requirements to accept requests to
include add-ons in the official repository

3. `g.extension` deserves some love and improvements and it should issue
a Warning like "Note, you are installing an add-on from an unofficial
source" when using a repository other than the official one

4. there should be some minimal testing for an add-on, i.e.: does it
build after a(ny) commit?, does it work after a(ny) commit? and ideally
a set of unit tests too.

5. besides git, neither git-hub, nor git-lab should be ever considered
permanent

That said, import/export operations for repositories are by now quite
good and I guess they will improve further

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

Re: git migration

ldesousa
In reply to this post by Martin Landa
Hi Martin,

the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which they would like GRASS migrate to. Personally, I would answer differently to each of these questions. I have an account on GitHub, but I no longer use it for personal projects and am trying to move collaborative projects away.

I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform.

In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome!

Cheers.


--
Luís Moreira de Sousa
Email: [hidden email]
RingID: ring:7ca91d83f4f9dec82fec9f1144b8e5c1ef2a110c
URL: https://ldesousa.github.io

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, 5 March 2019 20:24, Martin Landa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> as you probably know there some attempts to move GRASS source code to
> git, see also related survey
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1BoTFyZRNebqVX98A3rh5GpUS2gKFfmuim78gbradDjc/viewanalytics.
>
> From my POV, GRASS PSC should decide which platform to use. Result of
> the survey noted above is quite clear, GitHub platform won.
>
> I would suggest to create a new RFC document for GitHub (source code,
> issues, wiki?) migration and than to vote about it.
>
> See also https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3722#comment:20
>
> Martin
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
> http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
>
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc


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

Re: git migration

Martin Landa
Hi,

st 6. 3. 2019 v 14:42 odesílatel Luí­s Moreira de Sousa
<[hidden email]> napsal:
> the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which they would like GRASS migrate to.

see question: "What would be your preferred git platform?"

> Personally, I would answer differently to each of these questions. I have an account on GitHub, but I no longer use it for personal projects and am trying to move collaborative projects away.

I understand your points. I am the last who is happy with migrating
GRASS source code (issues) to GitHub. On the other hand most of core
OSGeo projects are on GitHub [1] including QGIS, or, well, PyWPS ;-)

> I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform.

Well, in the case that own OSGeo git platform would be stable and
solid, enough manpower to maintain than most of OSGeo projects would
be there. GDAL recently migrated to GitHub, etc. There are some clear
pragmatic points why to join Github. At least to join other projects
like GDAL and Proj.4 which are crucial for GRASS GIS.

> In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome!

Cool :-)

Ma

[1] https://github.com/osgeo

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

git migration: Opportunity for DOI citation

"Peter Löwe"
Dear PSC,

please be aware that IF we decide to migrate to gitHub, this would provide an opportunity to introduce digital object identifiers (DOI) for scientific citation on the level of individual GRASS releases (and possibly individual add-on modules) if we interface with the Zenodo digital archive (which is a non-propietary science infrastructure service operated be the EU). More info here: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/


best,
Peter
<[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Markus Neteler
In reply to this post by SBL
Hi,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:41 AM Stefan Blumentrath
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Two minor non-PSC comment on RFC 6, which generally looks very good to me:
>
> 1) One thing I probably would word a bit differently, is the comment on the addon repository, that currently says:
> " repository grass-addons
> repository for addons (this will become less relevant as people tend to keep their addons in own repositories)"
> Here I would say that esp because people are keeping addons in private repositories, it is even more important to simplify contribution to AddOns (and I hope the move to git would help). Because I consider it as highly valuable to have available addons gathered in one place (see amongst others: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/3583).

Yes: we should support both and be rather inviting towards our own
addon repo (read: "mostly well maintained").
It is just a matter of fact that folks will keep code in their own
repos but an addon manager from the grass-dev side you take care that
relevant contributions are merged into our central addons repo as
before.

> 2) Even being among those who voted for gitlab, I have to admit (as hinted earlier) that I would nevertheless come to the same conclusion that github sould be the destination/target (simply for pragmatical reasons). Also, many participants asked for OSGeo projects sticking together. And most of them are on github.

In my company we use successfully a self-deployed gitlab instance. Yet
we want to have more contributors and many are on github... (so far).

> That said, it would be nice if we could try to avoid making a later move away from github too painful (no lock in). In other words, lets try (as far as possible) to stay away from github-specific features[1] that will be hard to move. Just to acknowledge that,
>  a) the decision for github as a target is mainly a pragmatical one (as it is not Free and Open) and following the current majority vote

yes.

>  b) even OSGeo projects that currently are on GitHub, like QGIS, have an eye on Gitlab [2] based on a feature analysis [see 1]

also yes.

>  c) with 43 participants voting for GitHub, 24 voting for gitlab (pluss 5 voting for gitlab in OSGeo infrastructure) there is still (already?) a significant number of people with different preferences
> But again, lets move to git(hub) and try to stay as flexible as possible...

For now, I have added a new subsection:
   https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/RFC/6_MigrationGitHub#Exitstrategy
which essentially suggests to operate a real time mirror on gitlab.com.

Best
Markus

PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with
developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of
work... thanks Martin!!

> Cheers
> Stefan
>
> 1: https://about.gitlab.com/devops-tools/github-vs-gitlab.html
> 2: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Markus Neteler
In reply to this post by ldesousa
Hi Luí­s,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Luí­s Moreira de Sousa
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> the survey enquired which platforms people currently have access to, no which they would like GRASS migrate to. Personally, I would answer differently to each of these questions. I have an account on GitHub, but I no longer use it for personal projects and am trying to move collaborative projects away.
>
> I would wish for the PSC to give a bit more thought about this. Especially considering that OSGeo is running its own Git platform.

We spent weeks on it over the last 15 months :-)
Just not in this list which is low traffic anyway but during the last
code sprints and in offlist emails among interested folks.

> In any event, a migration from SVN to Git is most welcome!

Yes: let's start and migrate, time to move on.
And see also my other email from a few minutes ago about exit strategy
in case it is needed.

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

Re: git migration

Helmut Kudrnovsky
In reply to this post by Markus Neteler
Markus Neteler wrote
> PS: Did I mention that Martin Landa did an outstanding hard job with
> developing the svn2git converter scripts for code and issues? Weeks of
> work... thanks Martin!!

big kudos to Martin!




-----
best regards
Helmut
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GRASS-PSC-f4051248.html
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
best regards
Helmut
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

git migration: software citation 101

"Peter Löwe"
In reply to this post by "Peter Löwe"
Hi PSC,

to follow up on the software citation topic, here's a short tutorial which describes how guthub and Zenodo can be linked:
https://genr.eu/wp/cite/

IMHO it would make a lot of sense to provide proper scientific citation for GRASS releases 4.x - 6.x. Backports to these releasess will still be feasible.

best
peter


<[hidden email]>


> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. März 2019 um 17:55 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Löwe" <[hidden email]>
> An: "GRASS PSC list" <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: [GRASS-PSC] git migration: Opportunity for DOI citation
>
> Dear PSC,
>
> please be aware that IF we decide to migrate to gitHub, this would provide an opportunity to introduce digital object identifiers (DOI) for scientific citation on the level of individual GRASS releases (and possibly individual add-on modules) if we interface with the Zenodo digital archive (which is a non-propietary science infrastructure service operated be the EU). More info here: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
>
>
> best,
> Peter
> <[hidden email]>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Markus Neteler
In reply to this post by Helmut Kudrnovsky
Hi all,

where do we stand here at time?

Markus


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

Re: git migration

Martin Landa
Hi,

út 26. 3. 2019 v 11:28 odesílatel Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> napsal:
> where do we stand here at time?

RFC document is OK for me. I am ready to vote about that. Ma

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: git migration

Veronica Andreo
Hi,

I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe that we should keep
raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.

my 0.2 cents
Vero



El mar., 26 mar. 2019 a las 21:06, Martin Landa (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Hi,

út 26. 3. 2019 v 11:28 odesílatel Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> napsal:
> where do we stand here at time?

RFC document is OK for me. I am ready to vote about that. Ma

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

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

Re: git migration

margherita
Hi,

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe that we should keep
raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.

I tend to agree with Vero.
Cheers,



--
Margherita Di Leo

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

Re: git migration

Anna Petrášová


On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:48 AM Margherita Di Leo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Veronica Andreo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I opened a thread for discussion about labels and priorities for issues in the RFC, but there was not so much interest apparently [1]. I still believe that we should keep
raster(3d), vector, temporal and so on as components. I think those are useful and make search easier. Modules is maybe too general, IMO.

I agree, although with raster, vector etc it's not quite clear if it should refer to modules or libraries or both. Also don't forget labels work differently than trac categories.

I would also add 'Mac specific', (I don't think we need also Linux specific) and maybe just shorten it to 'MacOS' and 'Windows'.

Also I would add a label 'beginner'.

Anna


I tend to agree with Vero.
Cheers,



--
Margherita Di Leo
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

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

git migration: the Zenodo option

"Peter Löwe"
In reply to this post by Markus Neteler
Hello PSC,
 
before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the Zenodo archive in the future, so we can set up things in a way that this option can be used (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term scientific archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo), operated and maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.
Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
 
IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.
 
best,
peter
 
 
 
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. März 2019 um 12:28 Uhr
Von: "Markus Neteler" <[hidden email]>
An: GRASS-PSC <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi all,
 
where do we stand here at time?
 
Markus
 
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

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

Re: git migration: the Zenodo option

Michael Barton
I agree.
____________________
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity 
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University

voice:  480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)















On Apr 1, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Peter Löwe <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello PSC,
 
before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should consider beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the Zenodo archive in the future, so we can set up things in a way that this option can be used (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a open-access long term scientific archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo), operated and maintained by CERN. The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.
Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
 
IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and long term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.
 
best,
peter
 
 
 
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. März 2019 um 12:28 Uhr
Von: "Markus Neteler" <[hidden email]>
An: GRASS-PSC <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [GRASS-PSC] git migration
Hi all,
 
where do we stand here at time?
 
Markus
 
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc&d=DwIGaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=lk-7X7CEOMDN8GaGVhiDsuO6gEp1wbG6nfT1XEEEtR0&m=c6GgM0lX0PCBwvwnJVAbKoH_XSipwmj0EE0wOsPVMlw&s=-r3dUKskTlpotQnaqfAnh9m12i-F02d_oLOHKaM-wfk&e=


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

Re: git migration: the Zenodo option

Moritz Lennert
In reply to this post by "Peter Löwe"
On 1/04/19 09:35, "Peter Löwe" wrote:

> Hello PSC,
> before we actually venture into GitHub, I propose we should
> consider beforehand how the GRASS repo(s) *could* make use  of the
> Zenodo archive in the future, so we can set up things in a way that this
> option can be used (setting up of credentials, etc.). Zenodo is a
> open-access long term scientific archive
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo), operated and maintained by CERN.
> The Zenodo software itself is also FOSS.
> Connecting repos on GitHub with Zenodo is easy:
> https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
> IMHO we could use this mechanism to provide scientific citability and
> long term preservation for the old stable releases GRASS 4.x, 5.x and 6.x.


+1

Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
123