[Kde-scm-interest] Proposal: Migrating KDE to Git...orious.org
Albert Astals Cid
aacid at kde.org
Fri Jul 3 17:29:43 CEST 2009
A Divendres, 3 de juliol de 2009, vàreu escriure:
> Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >> However, hosting Gitorious within KDE has some drawbacks. The most
> >> egregious is that it places burden on our system administrators, mainly
> >> by requiring constant merging of the Gitorious code to keep up-to-date.
> > You mean git pull --rebase is time consuming?
> Plus any sql updates, template updates, etc. Updating webapps is never
> as simple as updating the source code.
> >> A3) Developers use the same accounts when comitting code to KDE and
> >> other (non-Qt) projects. This helps build community because it helps
> >> build cross-references between KDE and other projects, and show
> >> collaboration that is taking place.
> > There is really any significant project we could contribute to on
> > gitorious besides Qt? Having a look at active projects summary on
> > gitorious seems not
> "Significant" is in the eye of the beholder. That being said, Gitorious
> is small. Many people just put up their own Git instance (like Gnome,
> for instance) or use the non-free-but-oh-so-trendy GitHub (Ruby on Rails).
> Qt and KDE both being on Gitorious.org could certainly help it on its
> way towards critical mass.
> >> A5) KDE and Gitorious (and Qt) benefit from cross-marketing and
> >> promotion. We'd be the most visible project on the site (most likely
> >> above Qt in terms of activity), and our involvement would help make
> >> Gitorious more visible and legitimate.
> > That's not an advantage for us it's an advantage for gitorious.
> How is being seen as the most active and visible project on the hosting
> site not an advantage for us?
> >> A6) It makes KDE development look more community-related and less of a
> >> walled garden.
> > See my comment to A3, as there's not much big projects in gitorious other
> > than Qt and KDE it would just be a different walled garden.
> See my comment to your comment.
> Also, please explain how Gitorious is a walled garden at all.
> Third, what is the advantage of hosting a Gitorious instance on our own,
> in terms of your comments? Then there would definitely be no other
> projects to collaborate with, and it would definitely be a walled garden.
> >> D2) "There is not much other reason than that we have the hardware and
> >> the hosting, so we can do it."
> >> This is provided for completeness, but there isn't much discussion
> >> necessary.
> > I agree with dirk, it's our code, let's be ourself that hosts it.
> Please give some actual reasons why this is beneficial for us. I
> included that comment from Dirk for completeness, but it's a totally
> silly comment. I can drive my car off a cliff, so I might as well do
> it, right?
That'd save us that discussion on git ;-) j/k
Citing someone from IRC "KDE code is the highest thing we do as a community.
Putting it in hands of someone else is like sending our baby child to a
boarding school, some people do it but i do not like it"
More information about the Kde-scm-interest