Re: [SVN-MIGRATION] Github

I'm a big, big +1 on this as well. :-)

As a matter of dissent, I'd say we *don't* need the ACL system.  If we  
limit those who can commit to a /php/php-src.git repository to the  
main contributors, we don't need to have ACL.  Encourage people to  
work off of the main repository, create their work, then submit a pull  
request.  One of the devs with commit privileges can then pull it in  
if it works and is accepted.

The only reason to do that is managing multiple repositories via one  
massive repository (so far as I can tell, please correct me if I'm  
wrong).  That's fixed by breaking each of the pieces that need  
separate committers into their own repository and using git submodules  
to track known stable commits (note: git submodules are not like  
svn:externals - they don't track a branch, but a single commit and are  
pegged to that commit until you change it).

-T

P.S.  There's been some talk with the guys at GitHub about setting up  
PEAR channels so you can automatically build PEAR packages via a tag  
just like the RubyGems that they have.  If we move php-src over to it,  
that gives us even more incentive to get that auto-build done as all  
of PECL could be installable just by having the maintainer tag a new  
release.



On Feb 24, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

> I'm all for it, as you know. We'd have to find out how well GitHub  
> performs with a repository as large as ours, but if they implement  
> ACLs an pre/post commit hook stuff, I'd move as soon as possible.  
> It's just so much better than CVS.
>
> -Andrei
>
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> Had an interesting meeting with the Github folks today.  As you  
>> probably
>> all know, I have been rather reluctant to switch away from CVS  
>> until we
>> found something that was clearly better.  Until the very latest  
>> release
>> of Subversion, I didn't see it with SVN.  And now with the rise of
>> Github in the last 3 months and a number of projects making the  
>> move I
>> think we need to take a look at it.
>> My main concerns with Git through Github is the lack of a granular  
>> ACL
>> system and user definable pre and post commit hooks.  We need  
>> both.  The
>> Github folks will be releasing web service based pre and post commit
>> hooks soon, and through that we could probably get quite close to our
>> existing setup.  The work done on the scripts for the Subversion
>> migration could be changed slightly to provide the backend services  
>> for
>> the Github repository.  But, the Github folks are also willing to  
>> add an
>> ACL mechanism to Github and they would use whatever format we  
>> specified
>> since they said I was the first person to ask them for such a  
>> feature.
>> So, I am definitely not sold on this yet, but outsourcing the source
>> control work to a very motivated bunch of guys who do nothing but  
>> this
>> stuff appeals to me.  We would be a rather large feather in their  
>> cap,
>> so they are willing to jump through whatever hoops we ask them to  
>> jump
>> through.  For that reason alone we should compile a list of reasons  
>> both
>> for and against a move to Github.
>> I am fairly comfortable with the state of the Git Windows tools.
>> TortoiseGit is coming along, and I am told the Git Extensions for the
>> shell and VisualStudio work well.  The Git cli has been cleaned up as
>> well, so instead of 200 separate git programs, you now have a very
>> Mercurial-like cli and writing a git for PHP cvs users page  
>> wouldn't be
>> so hard today.
>> But, I would really like to hear some dissent on this one.  What  
>> have I
>> missed?
>> -Rasmus
>
> -- 
> SVN Migration Project Mailing List (http://svn.php.net)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>