Re: [Rd] Why R-project source code is not on Github
I was moreover concerned over bridging gap between web2.0 and web1.0 development methodologies & thus passing code to younger generation . But never mind . Sooner or later . Cheers. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Yihui Xie wrote: > As someone who has merged more than a hundred pull requests on Github, > I cannot agree more. Sometimes I can take patches on my mobile phone > while I'm still in bed if they look reasonable and simple enough. > Sometimes the patches are not worth emails back and forth, such as the > correction of typos. I cannot think of anything else that is more > efficient than being able to discuss the patch right in the lines of > diff's. > > Regards, > Yihui > -- > Yihui Xie > Web: http://yihui.name > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Simon Urbanek > wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Marc Schwartz wrote: > > > >> On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Gaurav Sehrawat > wrote: > >> > >>> R-Project is missing something important in regards to its development > , > >>> one simply can't ignore Github ,where collaboration is at it's best . > >>> > >>> OR If i am wrong is this the correct R-source : > >>> https://github.com/wch/r-source > >>> > >>> Is anyone thinking to bring R-project org on Github ? Maybe there > might be > >>> some difficulty while porting its version system to Github . > >>> > >>> Just a suggestion . > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Gaurav Sehrawat > >>> http://igauravsehrawat.com > >> > >> > >> The link you have above is to a read-only mirror (perhaps not the only > one) of the R source code that is kept in the official Subversion repo: > >> > >> https://svn.r-project.org/R/ > >> > >> There are also some documents that describe R's development cycle and > related processes: > >> > >> http://www.r-project.org/certification.html > >> > >> Your suggestion to move to Github is perhaps based upon a false > premise, that the R community at large has the ability to directly post > code/patches to the official distribution. We can contribute code and > patches, primarily here on R-Devel, to the code base. However, only the > members of R Core team (http://www.r-project.org/contributors.html) have > write access to the SVN repo above and have to approve any such > contributions. > >> > > > > How is this different from Github? Github just makes it much easier to > create and post patches to the project - it has nothing to do with write > access - typically on Github the community has no write access, either. > Using pull requests is certainly much less fragile than e-mails and patches > are based on forked branches, so you can directly build the patched version > if you want without manually applying the patch - and you see the whole > history so you can pick out things logically. You can comment on individual > patches to discuss them and even individual commits - often leading to a > quick round trip time of revising it. > > > > Cheers, > > Simon > > __ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Why R-project source code is not on Github
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Gaurav Sehrawat wrote: > > But never mind . Sooner or later. These things take time, but a lot has happened over the past years. By now all activity of r-base [1] cran [2] and r-forge [3] is continuously mirrored on Github, which already gives unprecedented insight in developments. At least several r-core members [4,5,6,7,8] have been spotted on Github, and this years useR2014 website [9] was developed and hosted completely on Github. It seems like a matter of time until the benefits outweigh the cost of a migration, even to the more conservative stakeholders. However moving development of a medium sized, 20 year old open source project is not trivial. You are dealing with a large commit history and many contributors that all have to overhaul their familiar tools and development practices overnight. There is also the infrastructure of nightly builds and CRAN r-devel package checking that relies on the svn. Moreover moving to Github means changes in communications, for example replacing the current bug tracking system to Github "issues". In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get everyone on board. My (limited) experience with these things is that the most critical piece of making such a transition actually happen is not just a general consensus that a is preferable over b, but rather a detailed proposal outlining what the migration would involve, the cost/benefits, a planning, and someone that is willing to take the lead. Only on the basis of such a serious proposal you can have a discussion in which everyone can voice concerns, be assured that his/her interests are secure, and the idea can eventually be put up for a vote. Jeroen [1] https://github.com/wch/r-source [2] https://github.com/cran [3] https://github.com/rforge [4] https://github.com/s-u [5] https://github.com/mmaechler [6] https://github.com/duncantl [7] https://github.com/pmur002 [8] https://github.com/dmbates [9] https://github.com/user2014 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Why R-project source code is not on Github
On 8/24/2014 10:24 AM, Jeroen Ooms wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Gaurav Sehrawat wrote: But never mind . Sooner or later. These things take time, but a lot has happened over the past years. By now all activity of r-base [1] cran [2] and r-forge [3] is continuously mirrored on Github, which already gives unprecedented insight in developments. At least several r-core members [4,5,6,7,8] have been spotted on Github, and this years useR2014 website [9] was developed and hosted completely on Github. It seems like a matter of time until the benefits outweigh the cost of a migration, even to the more conservative stakeholders. However moving development of a medium sized, 20 year old open source project is not trivial. You are dealing with a large commit history and many contributors that all have to overhaul their familiar tools and development practices overnight. There is also the infrastructure of nightly builds and CRAN r-devel package checking that relies on the svn. Moreover moving to Github means changes in communications, for example replacing the current bug tracking system to Github "issues". In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get everyone on board. Am I correct that we could use Git without Github? If yes, the planning might involve a cost-benefit comparison of what would be required bring up a not-for-profit alternative to Github (e.g., RGit.org or FreeGit.org or ...), and whether the risks of problems with that would be more or less than the risks associated with "putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company". Spencer p.s. Regarding the risks of "putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company," I would naively expect that it should be easy and cheap for someone to program a server to make daily backup copies of whatever we want from Github. This could provide an insurance policy in case events push the group to leave Github. Many (most?) of those who read this may remember how LibreOffice forked from Open Office. A friend told me that MySQL has a much larger user (and developer?) base than LibreOffice, and every Oracle executive doubtless knows that MySQL could similarly be forked relatively easily. My (limited) experience with these things is that the most critical piece of making such a transition actually happen is not just a general consensus that a is preferable over b, but rather a detailed proposal outlining what the migration would involve, the cost/benefits, a planning, and someone that is willing to take the lead. Only on the basis of such a serious proposal you can have a discussion in which everyone can voice concerns, be assured that his/her interests are secure, and the idea can eventually be put up for a vote. Jeroen [1] https://github.com/wch/r-source [2] https://github.com/cran [3] https://github.com/rforge [4] https://github.com/s-u [5] https://github.com/mmaechler [6] https://github.com/duncantl [7] https://github.com/pmur002 [8] https://github.com/dmbates [9] https://github.com/user2014 __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Why R-project source code is not on Github
One thing to note about git vs svn is that each git repository is a complete repository containing the full history, so despite github acting as a central repository, it is not the same as a central svn repository. In svn the central repository is typically the only repository with a complete revision history, but that is not the case with git. � Brian Lee Yung Rowe Founder, Zato Novo Professor, M.S. Data Analytics, CUNY On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: >> In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code >> in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These >> are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get >> everyone on board. > > > Am I correct that we could use Git without Github? > > > If yes, the planning might involve a cost-benefit comparison of what > would be required bring up a not-for-profit alternative to Github (e.g., > RGit.org or FreeGit.org or ...), and whether the risks of problems with that > would be more or less than the risks associated with "putting source code in > the hands of a for-profit US company". > > > Spencer > > > p.s. Regarding the risks of "putting source code in the hands of a > for-profit US company," I would naively expect that it should be easy and > cheap for someone to program a server to make daily backup copies of whatever > we want from Github. This could provide an insurance policy in case events > push the group to leave Github. Many (most?) of those who read this may > remember how LibreOffice forked from Open Office. A friend told me that > MySQL has a much larger user (and developer?) base than LibreOffice, and > every Oracle executive doubtless knows that MySQL could similarly be forked > relatively easily. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] Why R-project source code is not on Github
On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: > On 8/24/2014 10:24 AM, Jeroen Ooms wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Gaurav Sehrawat >> wrote: >>> But never mind . Sooner or later. >> These things take time, but a lot has happened over the past years. By >> now all activity of r-base [1] cran [2] and r-forge [3] is >> continuously mirrored on Github, which already gives unprecedented >> insight in developments. At least several r-core members [4,5,6,7,8] >> have been spotted on Github, and this years useR2014 website [9] was >> developed and hosted completely on Github. It seems like a matter of >> time until the benefits outweigh the cost of a migration, even to the >> more conservative stakeholders. >> >> However moving development of a medium sized, 20 year old open source >> project is not trivial. You are dealing with a large commit history >> and many contributors that all have to overhaul their familiar tools >> and development practices overnight. There is also the infrastructure >> of nightly builds and CRAN r-devel package checking that relies on the >> svn. Moreover moving to Github means changes in communications, for >> example replacing the current bug tracking system to Github "issues". >> In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code >> in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These >> are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get >> everyone on board. > > > Am I correct that we could use Git without Github? > No. git is the necessary evil if you deal with Github (almost - Github actually supports direct SVN access as well) - but there is no point in using git alone. I hate git*, but I love Github (despite being very cynical about it before I tried pushing some of my packages there - and seeing the actual impact). The whole point are the collaborative features - and it's hard to get those right (many tried and failed such as GitLab) which is exactly what Github did. Cheers, Simon * - git is great for people who like to compile their own Linux kernel every week. Yes, I have done that when I was young - it was fun and I felt great having all the fine control, but once you get a life and just want to get things done, you really don't want to deal with things at such a level anymore. There are better alternatives, but Github placed the bet on git which is what counts in the end. But this is OT so flame me directly if you wish. > If yes, the planning might involve a cost-benefit comparison of what > would be required bring up a not-for-profit alternative to Github (e.g., > RGit.org or FreeGit.org or ...), and whether the risks of problems with that > would be more or less than the risks associated with "putting source code in > the hands of a for-profit US company". > > > Spencer > > > p.s. Regarding the risks of "putting source code in the hands of a > for-profit US company," I would naively expect that it should be easy and > cheap for someone to program a server to make daily backup copies of whatever > we want from Github. This could provide an insurance policy in case events > push the group to leave Github. Many (most?) of those who read this may > remember how LibreOffice forked from Open Office. A friend told me that > MySQL has a much larger user (and developer?) base than LibreOffice, and > every Oracle executive doubtless knows that MySQL could similarly be forked > relatively easily. > >> My (limited) experience with these things is that the most critical >> piece of making such a transition actually happen is not just a >> general consensus that a is preferable over b, but rather a detailed >> proposal outlining what the migration would involve, the >> cost/benefits, a planning, and someone that is willing to take the >> lead. Only on the basis of such a serious proposal you can have a >> discussion in which everyone can voice concerns, be assured that >> his/her interests are secure, and the idea can eventually be put up >> for a vote. >> >> Jeroen >> >> [1] https://github.com/wch/r-source >> [2] https://github.com/cran >> [3] https://github.com/rforge >> [4] https://github.com/s-u >> [5] https://github.com/mmaechler >> [6] https://github.com/duncantl >> [7] https://github.com/pmur002 >> [8] https://github.com/dmbates >> [9] https://github.com/user2014 >> >> __ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > __ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
