Re: Re: Keeping CVS? was - Re: [PEAR-DEV] CVS 2 SVN

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Joe Stump<joe@joestump.net> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:18 AM, till wrote: > >> I think this is an argument against it. Distributed VCS is cool, but >> distributed bug tracking and documentation? I see that Github will >> "probably not disappear tomorrow, but integrating the above into the >> PEAR QA process will be hellish. > > Can you explain how? Each PEAR package would be under the pear (or pear2) > username so all the bugs would be centralized to that package/user. > > My understanding of how this *might* work would be: > 1. I propose a package. > 2. It's approved. > 3. The pear user creates a package on GitHub and makes me a contributor. > 4. Wiki/Bugs are grouped into that package under the pear username. I did think that sharing the pear or pear2 username is against the TOS. And having a single person handle that sounds like a another bottleneck to me. I was looking at the situation from another side -- whoever wants to use github, has an account and opens a repository. How do you manage them without adding more organization? > Also, GitHub has a pretty nice API. No reason we couldn't build tools for QA > to harvest and show this information in an easier format. Yeah, I don't want to crush your dreams, but who's going to build all that? ;-) I mean, again, it's certainly do-able since they provide an API and more than one person on this thread seems to know one or more people from github, but I'm just not sure if it's that easy to integrate it all on a practical level (in real world, so to speak). Besides me being a fan of git and github, I also don't know if we want to tie ourselves to any external party. > I'm not saying your point is invalid (I've never done PEAR-QA stuff). Just > curious for more info. :) Neither is your's, of course. Till