Child pages
  • October 15rd 2014
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Attendees: Chris, Jim, Lynne, Scott, ajc, Kem, Cathy, Frossie, Brittany, Veljko, Zeljko, Simon, Peter, K-T, Darko, Heather
Call in number: 866 330 1200
Code: 518 2287#

 Goto Meeting  ID  821-177-359
Summary: no fundamental concerns were expressed in moving from Stash to Github as long as SQuaRE can take the lead in moving the commit comments over and shepherd the sims move to github. We would like to have a transition plan for the move to ensure that it goes smoothly and some help in setting up the workflows.

 - A proposal to move to Github (Frossie)

  • What are the benefits from Github 
    • It is the leading OS repository system. We would move to something else if Github was not the lead (or ceases to be the leader in open source repositories). This provides visibility for developers and helps them with their careers (people look if you are on Github) 
    • DM wants to move the discussion of the code into the code base to make us agnostic to the repository system
  • What are the issues in moving from Stash
    • Stash has a cleaner interface but most of the tools we use (e.g. Jira) work with stash and Atlasssian is bursty in its development
    • No option for multiple reviewers or the ability to approve (can hack this functionality - set milestones via JIRA triggers and tag them to the API - but a hack)
    • Pull requests from git hub interface to jira, email noise from notifications can be an issue but it is configurable, not as streamline as stash, 
    • still need to close out issues on JIRA after the pull request but close commits in smart comments
    • can't create branches from a JIRA agile issue
    • Github has better anonymous access (through pull requests)
    • There are private repos for sensitive material (you can also mirror the repos but that is fairly clumsy)
    • Number of repos is large in DM (most of our repos don't build standalone). Not a lot of other groups outside of LSST  have this issue
      • Linux model has a hierarchy of repos - set of gate keepers who control each set of code
      • could create a webpage to organize the repos
  • What needs to happen to move
    • At the git level it is just changing the remote (as we did to move to stash)
    • We need a transition plan that will document how things will move and when
      • SQuaRE will provide support for the move (including moving comments in the current commits and reviews)
      • SQuaRE will define the naming conventions for the repos so that they are easy to find (or set up a webpage that lists and organizes the repos)
      • We will need to define the workflows and test them before the move
    • SQuaRE has offered to provide developer support for all of the software efforts (not just DM) that work with its framework and any future transitions


From Chris Walter:

Because of the way things are setup there, without a compact view of all of the repos I think some sort of good namespace for repo names is key. Then you can just start to type the name of the repo in the search box and the github site immediately starts to narrow down the repos to ones with that name.

For the sims repos this ins't a problem since they already start with "sims_".  But the DM stuff doesn't.  So, if DM transitions too I think DM needs some sort of similar name space prefix.  Otherwise we will probably want separate organizations (LSST_Sims, LSST_DM etc) but I think one organization with descriptive name spaces is better.

Another thing to think about: what about contributed repos? Do we want a contrib_ area or should people just have keep things in their own github accounts? If so how do we track them?  Also, I noticed through the API you can make web pages that show all of the repos. 

  • No labels