Git migration - github vs

Christian Stimming christian at
Thu Nov 1 05:29:03 EDT 2012

Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2012, 15:33:02 schrieb Geert Janssens:
> This discussion has been had multiple times before and frankly I hope
> this will be the last time.


> - Nobody opposed to using github. In fact most developers are in favour
> of using it.
> - John indicated that github is good, but we shouldn't use the github
> issue tracker or pull requests. They appear to be a source of trouble.
> - Mostly Derek insists on having a canonical repository on
> as well. Others haven't explicitly agreed or disagreed
> on this.
> - Yawar proposed to have the main activity run on github, and pull
> periodically to The latter can be considered canonical.
> Let's continue to build on this. I propose this setup:
> One master repo hosted on github. One canonical repo on
> pulls periodically from this master repo to keep in sync.

Yes, sounds good. The master repo would be this:

> Only selected developers have commit access to the github repository.
> This is all access control we need here.

Yes. Where can this be managed? Is it this page (only for the currently four 
Or rather this one: (I just tried adding some 
few people; the list is for sure not yet complete)

I guess all of the recent committers should be added, such as the full list 
from the file git-helper-scripts/gnc_authors. However, some of them don't seem 
to have a github account, do they? E.g., Derek?

> All others that wish to contribute have to fork/clone this repository
> and send in patches.
> It looks like we better don't use github's issue tracker and pull
> request mechanisms. John stated this explicitly on the previous
> discussion, but there is criticism on these tools also in other (large)
> projects. Instead we continue to use our own contribution process,
> being: patches have to be sent to bugzilla or the mailing list (the
> latter has a higher risk of getting lost). Issues should be tracked in
> bugzilla. Ideas and requests could be tracked in either bugzilla or
> uservoice.


> There is also a feature on github to annotate patches (write inline
> comments). I don't know it's advantages or drawbacks, but given the
> opinion on pull requests and issue tracker, it's probably safe to not
> promote the annotation tool so far. Instead discussion of patches
> continues on the mailing lists as is now.

It doesn't have to be promoted, yes. The feature itself OTOH seems quite 
useful for me, so that inline comments can be inserted and then referenced 
from e-mail:

> I have not really decided yet how to handle access control to the
> canonical repository on yet. In principle nobody needs
> to push anything to this repo. It should simply fully automatically pull
> from the github master repo. But just in case for maintenance or other
> situations, I think it makes sense to allow push access by the same
> developers that currently can commit to svn on


> I have deliberately skipped implementation details in this mail (how to
> enforce access control, how to trigger push/pull requests,...). I first
> would like to come to a consensus on the concept. Then work out the details.
> So any issues with this proposal ? (If so, please use bugzilla, not the
> github issue tracker ;p ). Or if you agree, please state so as well, so
> we can get an idea if we can pursue this proposal or not.

Agreed. Thanks a lot!


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list