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

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, James

Thanks. I think we are getting to a productive discussion.

I doubt if there are many who have updated the activity.info to link to 
a personal repository (not an organization repository). However, 
certainly those requests should be honored.

If a developer has his own private (not organization) repository, how do 
we handle an issue raised against that activity? I visualize that we 
would want to know the version of Sugar on which it was run and the 
version of the activity. In that case, an attempt to reproduce the 
problem could potentially be made. Going forward, developers only need 
to make a commit when they change the version number in activity.info.

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.

This seems clear. In the case that no repository is visible, should I 
proceed as before, making the repository from ASLO?

I had completely missed the chart activity, glad you mentioned it. Help 
is a strange case, it is was never submitted to ASLO.

Tony


On 04/24/2017 03:48 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> 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.  ;-)
>>>