Re: First git based automated build

Derek Atkins derek at
Sun Aug 12 18:47:20 EDT 2012

Oops hit the wrong reply button...


Sent from my HTC smartphone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Derek Atkins" <derek at>
To: "John Ralls" <jralls at>
Subject: Re: First git based automated build
Date: Sun, Aug 12, 2012 6:33 PM

Geert, nice work. Glad we have that working.  One step closer.

John, I see only two reasonable options, github or I think both sf and gnome are non starters. Github is an option because some devs are already using it. I don't know if it can provide all the hooks we want, such as port knockers to kick off updates of web servers and such.

The docs build is a pull cron job. Changing it from svn update to git pull should be relatively easy. I don't know how hard it will be to swap the htdocs from svn to git.. That require help from Linas.


Sent from my HTC smartphone----- Reply message -----
From: "John Ralls" <jralls at>
Cc: <gnucash-devel at>
Subject: First git based automated build
Date: Sun, Aug 12, 2012 6:03 PM

On Aug 12, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at> wrote:

> Just FYI,
> I ran the modified on the build server (and directly from the cloned git repo as well instead of using a separate packaging directory).
> The build was successfully built and uploaded. So that's one step closer to git migration.
> I think we should now come to an agreement on where we want to host the master repository. Fixing the remaining hooks and scripts depends on this choice.
> Can someone come up with a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of both options:
> - hosting on
> - hosting on github
> - or even an alternative git hosting provider
> I don't have enough experience with git hosting providers to really do this.

Are there any commit hooks that we can't do without? If so, we'll need to translate them and figure out how (and if) to make them work on the selected hosting provider.

It's on Github now, so there's some benefit to keeping it there. There are a few downsides:
* People will want to submit pull requests instead of submitting patches via bugzilla
* People will want to interact with us by sticking inline comments on change sets.
* We'll have to work something out with Trac, or just browse via Github. Trac is nicer IMO.

Another obvious alternative is Sourceforge, since that's where we already host downloads. They're in a bit of a migration right now -- they're getting rid of hosted applications (which in our case would mean trac) in favor of having projects run those applications in a virtual server of some sort -- but that's supposed to be fixed by the end of the year. We'll be able to put Trac there for browsing (ViewCVS doesn't work very well with git IMO) once that's sorted out. 

We could also go to, where we already use Bugzilla. We'd have to grovel a bit, and it takes time to get approved, but it's doable. Browsing would be with their version of CGit, which isn't too awful. The big issue there is that there's no compartmentation of push privileges. All committers can push to any repo. I guess the theory is that anything stupid or malicious can be quickly reverted, and repeat offenders can be ejected.

John Ralls

gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel at

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list