[Members] source control

Waqas Hussain waqas20 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 19:54:20 UTC 2013

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Currently we host our own git repository on athena.jabber.org, and
> just about anyone who makes changes to our files sends me a patch and
> I check it over and then check it in. Last night after Winfried
> Tilanus asked me about git access for post-Summit fixes to the BOSH
> specs, I got to thinking: why are we hosting our own source control
> repository? Why not move the whole thing to GitHub? It's not as if
> we're doing anything fancy (oh, say, PGP-signed checkins) and running
> a source control repository doesn't seem core to our mission, plus
> putting it on GitHub or Gitorious or whatever would provide greater
> visibility into activity at xmpp.org.
> Just a thought...

The whole email thread can be summarized into "We should have GitHub"
vs "We should have control".

We can have it both ways fairly easily: Git is distributed. Using
post-commit hooks to keep both repos in sync with each other isn't
particularly hard. I'd be happy to set things up if we go this way.

I propose accepting commits via email AND via GitHub pull requests.
Really, why not?

GitHub's major (only?) downside is the loss of control. I understand
that perfectly, and like to host my personal repos on my own server.

The XSF hosting things also has a major downside. We've had servers go
down and stay down for hours (or days). The XSF is a volunteer run
organization, and we volunteers are generally busy with other things.
We don't have 24/7 staff on hand to instantly detect and fix issues
within minutes. GitHub on the other hand does.

Here's an example of why the XSF servers should not be the sole way of
contributing to the project:
1. Random person reads spec, finds an issue
2. Random person knows about the XSF, Google's "XSF issue tracker"
3. Finds http://xmpp.org/2010/02/issue-tracker/ and clicks on one of
the links to get to http://tracker.xmpp.org/
4. "500 - Internal Server Error" - it's been that way for months

The XSF infrastructure team is not fast moving (all evidence points to
us being extremely slow moving...), and XSF projects get delayed
because volunteers are busy with other things. The XSF infrastructure
should NOT be the single point of failure in whatever we decide to do.
Seriously, if the disk of the machine with the repo dies right now,
based on how quickly we have historically dealt with such things, our
response wont be impressing anybody.

Oh, and I personally couldn't care less which of the repos gets to be
called "official", as long as both allow contribution directly. Flip a
coin, or just call them both official: they would pretty much be one
logical repo which just happens to be hosted on two separate sets of
infrastructure, thanks to the distributed nature of git.

1. A lot of people want GitHub. They want this because of the
mindshare GitHub has, features like pull requests, and support making
quick contributions from right within the web UI (and they are *not*
asking for Gitorious)
2. Many highly technical people, including some of the team actually
managing the servers want control over the repos
3. A setup allowing both sides to be happy is possible

Waqas Hussain

More information about the Members mailing list