[ASLO] [Sugar-devel] Activities added to GithHub

[Tony Anderson]

Apparently my English is a bit garbled. I apologize.

What I am doing is going down the list of activities on ASLO as shown in 
download.sugarlabs.org where each activity is given a four digit 
'add-on' identification.

There were 137 with repositories already on github. For these, the 
needed action had already been taken.

In making repositories for the 71, I created the repository from ASLO. 
That was my faux pas. I should have checked git.sugarlabs.org. No harm 
is done other than loss of my time.

Implode is one of the 24 with repositories on git.sugarlabs.org. I 
intend to delete these 24.

As I understand the git team process, a repository on github is the 
'master' and bundles for ASLO will be published from there. A clone of 
the master is made by a developer to update the activity and the result 
of the work is pushed back for merge. I doubt that anyone advocates a 
private copy of one of the pinned repositories as the master so why have 
one for an activity.

As I understand it, you believe the  activity repositories should be 
added to github/sugarlabs as I have been doing.

Tony


On 04/24/2017 12:02 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
>> Hi James, Walter
>>
>> I reviewed the 71 activities for which I created a repository in
>> github/ sugarlabs.
>>
>> Of these 47 are not duplicates to repositories on git.sugalabs.org.
> But you omit repositories in other than git.sugarlabs.org?
>
> For instance, Implode-17 has activity.info file with correct
> repository value, yet you had created one for it?
>
> Activities may have no repositories, a repository on
> git.sugarlabs.org, a repository on laptop.org, a repository held by an
> individual, or a repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs
>
> For some activities, the repository on http://github.com/sugarlabs is
> a clone of a master repository somewhere else.
>
>> My understanding from the community is that activity repositoies on
>> git.sugarlabs.org should be considered the 'master' copy and ported
>> to github,
> Not if there is a more recent repository than git.sugarlabs.org
>
>> James has raised the point that adding some 600 repositories to
>> github/ sugarlabs makes reviewing the repositories more difficult.
> No, I didn't say that.
>
>> I would advocate Ignacio's idea that we have a
>> github/sugaractivitiies which would leave the sugarlabs repositories
>> for Sugar.
> I've stated why I think that is bad.
>
>> In the meantime, I plan to do nothing more on this project until
>> there is a clear direction from the community on how it is to be
>> done.
>>
>> My goal is to get repositories on github corresponding to each
>> activity in ASLO so that we can eliminate the 'developer web',
> I don't agree with this goal.
>
> If there was any consultation on this goal; those who make the most
> commits should have the most say.  ;-)
>