[ensembl-dev] Git

[Paul Flicek]

Hi Matthew, Ken and others,

These are useful data points for us especially when there are similar project to Ensembl that have made the change.

We of course, have a lot of history using CVS and we understand how it works for our needs.  This doesn't mean that we would never change only that we don't necessary set out to change things that work.

I do think that it is also useful to point out that the purpose of Ensembl is fundamentally to create useful and up to date genome resources :)  If the tools that we are using are adequate to the tasks that we need, we are very likely to keep on using them.  Of course, when the tools are getting in the way of what we are trying to do, there is some urgency to change. 

We will discuss this at one of our next internal operations meetings.  If we do decide to change, the dev list will be among the first groups to know.


Paul


On 11 Sep 2012, at 10:11, Matthew Astley wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:24:37PM +0000, Youens-Clark, Ken wrote:
> 
>> While meeting on campus, I brought up the multiple advantages to an
>> outside developer such as myself to having the Ensembl code
>> repository move to Git.
> 
> The ensembl CVS repository hosts several projects, some more tightly
> coupled than others.
> 
> ensembl-otter was in there, it was and still is connected to Ensembl
> as a "leaf", so no other code should depend on it.
> 
> We moved it to Git last year, and later also to Github,
>  http://cvs.sanger.ac.uk/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/ensembl-otter/MOVED.txt?revision=1.2&root=ensembl&view=markup
> 
> and have been almost entirely pleased with the results.  We still have
> other code in CVS.
> 
> 
> 
>> I'll list a few points to start the discussion:
> 
> I tried starting discussion a while ago.  Some ensembl projects were
> quite happy with CVS and had no plans to move.  Others have been
> quietly interested.
> 
> I'm happy to support owners of code with the migration process.  It is
> gradual & minimally invasive.  There's no commitment to switch until
> the addition of MOVED.txt or similar, and marking the CVS files
> read-only.
> 
> I also maintain cvs2git ghosts for some projects.  We use these
> internally and occasionally, and were not planning to share them.
> 
> 
>> - [...] CVS was started in 1986.  [...]  Basically, CVS development
>> appears to have been abandoned about 4 years ago.
> 
> True (or at least true enough for me).  But like other old software,
> CVS can still do what it always did; and the later versions do add
> extra info to mark commitids.
> 
> Provided there are no security problems, the incentive to switch is
> only that newer tools are better.
> 
> 
>> - [Git] is enormously powerful (and, yes, more complex than CVS, but
>> not necessarily in the main) and is actively developed by a vibrant
>> community of dedicated hackers.
> 
> Exactly as with CVS, I would recommend having one person "nearby" who
> can deal with the unusual and difficult Git issues.  The rest is just
> commit and push.
> 
> The tools supporting Git are great.
> 
> 
>> - Git's social ideas of coding are worth exploring and adopting.
> 
> The social side is also optional.  I have private Git repositories for
> some passwords, diary entries etc. which live on encrypted filesystems
> and are not shared with anyone.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list    Dev at ensembl.org
> List admin (including subscribe/unsubscribe): http://lists.ensembl.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> Ensembl Blog: http://www.ensembl.info/