Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
We had a look at switching over to Github, but there was no good way to
transfer all of the issue tracking history. After 5+ years this is a rich and
substantial resource, and I am not clear whether the gain of switching would be
worth the loss. Besides, you found us here...
Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2014 at 8:43
Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2014 at 8:44
A possibility to consider would be moving the code to GitHub (nicer interface,
pull requests, easier to fork, network graph, etc.) and keeping the issues on
Google Code.
Also, the website code could be put in a branch which would enable improvements
from the community (for example: "Look for the line 'CONFIG += x86_64 x86 ppc'"
could be put in bold, I lost so much time...)
Original comment by david.pe...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2014 at 12:04
I fully agree that the issue tracking history would be a rich and substantial
resource and a testament to the vigorous health of the project and the
community.
I am also not sure when the last time the migration was considered, because it
seems there are tools that can migrate the issues for you automatically as
shown here.
https://github.com/arthur-debert/google-code-issues-migrator
The following person seems to have used the script above to migrate their
issues as well.
http://beets.radbox.org/blog/github-issues.html
It seems the biggest problem would be "spam" for each of the contributors as
the issues are created in github and the loss of original author name/date.
I know what you mean by the cost/benefit trade off, but given the new set of
tools available now and in the future, might be worth revisiting this issue
once in a while.
Original comment by chaitany...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2014 at 2:02
More info at issue 2203.
Looking at the migration report, it doesn't sound so bad after all. The
benefits do seem higher these days.
Would anyone of you be willing to give it a try, adapting the script to our
case and see what results it produces?
Original comment by andre.knoerig@gmail.com
on 14 Feb 2014 at 4:46
I have migrated the code and issues to GitHub:
https://github.com/davidperrenoud/fritzing
The pull requests by @davidsansome on google-code-issues-migrator have to be
applied if someone wants to do this migration again (I don't advise it as it
took a loooooong time even with a DigitalOcean server). Also, if you hit the
GitHub API rate limit, you have to wait an hour and restart the script from at
the issue it stopped.
For unknown reasons (Unicode?), I wasn't able to migrate the following issues
but they can be added manually if needed:
https://code.google.com/p/fritzing/issues/detail?id=2318
https://code.google.com/p/fritzing/issues/detail?id=2423
What do you think?
Original comment by david.pe...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2014 at 9:12
The username "fritzing" was deemed dormant and liberated under GitHub's
name-squatting policy. I quickly created an organization named "fritzing" in
order not to lose the name again and added @aknoerig and @el-j based on the
list of contributors with a GitHub account (but you can remove me from the
organization if you want as it's your project and trademark after all).
This way, the GitHub URL could now be:
https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing
Original comment by david.pe...@gmail.com
on 26 Aug 2014 at 10:44
That's awesome, thanks! We had just started experimenting with it ourselves.
el-j aka bluearc has done it at our existing github account at
https://github.com/FritzingOrg. I don't know if he took a different approach,
but he seems to have had more trouble migrating issues.
@bluearc, maybe we should then also move the code to the 'fritzing' account? At
least all the issues are there.
It's nice to see that all issues keep a back-link to the original google issue
tracker, especially since github doesn't support file attachments other than
images.
There's one major issue with the migration that I would still like to see
solved before we make the switch: attributing contributors properly. Currently
the account that runs the migration gets attributed with all the commits. I can
see that in el-js repository some additional users got attributed and sent him
a list of google code vs. github accounts of committers. We can't get all
people, but we should try to get as many as possible.
Can any of you see how this is done?
Original comment by andre.knoerig@gmail.com
on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:01
Commits seem to be automatically assigned based on the e-mail of the
contributor who made the commit.
For example, André, you should associate your ixds.de e-mail to your GitHub
account to have the following commit assigned to you:
https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing/commit/dbc1f6e225a9bb31cba799e689f4a3842661
44f3
Original comment by david.pe...@gmail.com
on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:39
Now I see, thanks! So we only have to tell everyone to add their mail addresses
to their profiles.
I'm on holiday at the moment, so won't continue with this until I'm back, but
it looks like we're very close then!
Original comment by andre.knoerig@gmail.com
on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:58
Issue has moved to new issue tracker at github. Please continue the discussion
at https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing-app/issues
Original comment by andre.knoerig@gmail.com
on 23 Sep 2014 at 3:44
Thanks everyone for the support, the move is now done! Find us now at
https://github.com/fritzing/fritzing-app/.
I'll update the readme and then announce it.
Original comment by andre.knoerig@gmail.com
on 23 Sep 2014 at 4:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chaitany...@gmail.com
on 4 Feb 2014 at 1:11