Re: [SVN-MIGRATION] Github

Other than the user id collision issue, I actually like the hosted
model.  I think the risk is minimal for something like git hosting
because each checked out tree carries the entire revision history, so
even if github self-destructs somehow, someone out there will always
have a copy of the latest master tree.

Some of the things I like about the github site itself:

. You can make trivial commits directly on the site by simply clicking
the 'edit' button.  This lowers the barrier of entry for a lot of
non-technical people, and even some technical people.  Make trivial
documentation fixes directly on the site - if you have access, of course.

. The site encourages people to create their own working branches (forks
in their terminology) and they make it very easy to do that and easy to
then merge these branches.  People don't need to have access to our tree
to create these branches, so I think it encourages much better
contributions.

. The Network view is cool.  See
http://github.com/spullara/yql-tables/network for an example of a small
project I have been committing to (directly on master in my case)

. Maintaining the server and handling backups becomes someone else's
problem, for a change.  We are (well, ok, I am) notoriously slack about
sys-admin duties, so the less we have to do, the better.

. The Github guys are motivated to make it work well for us.  If they
support our avail file format and provide us with pre and post commit
hooks that we have full control over, then I think we will be able to do
all the things we do today pretty much the same way.

It may sound like I am completely sold on this, but I am actually not.
I am fishing for negatives here.  I think the user id issue is pretty
serious.  Bug reports and code comments referring to cvs ids would be
inconsistent if we are forced to rename all the users and all their
historical commits.

-Rasmus


Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Based on their web site it seems that for some large organization they are willing to skip the SaaS setup and do onsite hosting. Maybe this is an option?
> 
> Also, is what you are saying that git in itself does not have quite enough value/convenience for us to move but with Github it becomes extremely compelling because of the value-add? (Not disagreeing but just interested to understand whether the decision here is SVN vs. git or SVN vs. Github)
> 
> Andi
> 
>> -----Original Message-----	
>> From: Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:00 PM
>> To: Rasmus Lerdorf
>> Cc: Travis Swicegood; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [SVN-MIGRATION] Github
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think another point of dissent would be username issues.  'rasmus' was
>>> already taken on github, for example, so 10+ years of commits under
>>> 'rasmus' now needs to be mapped to some other user id?  That doesn't
>>> sound appealing.
>> Question then would be if they are ready to create a new user database
>> for us that only works with php.github.org or something similar ?
>> Probably not the ideal solution either since I'd not be using my
>> normal github username for the php repo and thus losing one of the
>> attractiveness of moving to github.
>>
>> - Helgi
>>
>> --
>> SVN Migration Project Mailing List (http://svn.php.net)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php