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

[James Cameron]

Yes, I'm familiar with the ASLO hosting directory on
download.sugarlabs.org with the (currently) four digit identification.

Your understanding is incomplete and to some extent in error.

Implode should not be forked from git.sugarlabs.org, as the current
maintainer has a public copy in their GitHub account and treats that
as the master from which to publish a bundle.  Several other
activities are in the same situation, such as Help and Chart.

Any activity on git.sugarlabs.org that has no later repository on
GitHub or anywhere else should be cloned to GitHub.  This is so that
our Gitorious instance can be decommissioned.

Gitorious was to have been set read-only, but this was not done; as a
result some development has continued there.

See also
https://developer.sugarlabs.org/contributing.md.html where it says

"Most activity repositories can be found in our GitHub sugarlabs
organization.

A few activity repositories are somewhere else; read the
activity/activity.info file, check the metadata on the
activities.sugarlabs.org app store, or the Activity page on
wiki.sugarlabs.org, or our deprecated gitorious instance."


On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:46:08PM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> 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.  ;-)
> >
> 

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/