Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
I think so, I just sent out an e-mail to the project mailing list [1] asking
for options. GitHub would be my personal preferred choice, but I don't know if
there are other favorites among the maintainers.
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/include-what-you-use/F0DLAkAh22k
Original comment by kim.gras...@gmail.com
on 6 Apr 2015 at 4:34
I am OK with GitHub, does anybody have other suggestions? There are other
services, but I don't know any that have unique features useful for IWYU.
I plan to prepare a migration todo list, if nobody beats me to it. And I want
to discuss a few naming issues.
Original comment by vsap...@gmail.com
on 7 Apr 2015 at 6:47
Why not clang-extra-tools?
See
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/include-what-you-use/IK0JyZ2sSlc/bWjuX3h9PJAJ.
Original comment by Eugene.Z...@gmail.com
on 8 Apr 2015 at 10:46
Migrating to clang-extra-tools requires code changes, while migrating to GitHub
should be only infrastructure change.
Original comment by vsap...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2015 at 7:33
And to answer Dave Johansen.
> I personally like Mercurial's interface a lot more than git's, so I would
prefer bitbucket over github, but I'm glad to use/support whatever the choice
is.
I also prefer Mercurial's interface and sometimes use hg-git to work with Git
repos from Mercurial.
Regarding BitBucket and GitHub, personally I prefer GitHub. The only thing I
like about BitBucket is that it provides free private repos, but for IWYU it
doesn't matter. Another advantage of GitHub is it is more popular. Sorry, I
don't have evidence to support this statement, but it definitely feels like
GitHub is more popular than BitBucket.
Original comment by vsap...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2015 at 7:38
I agree that GitHub seems to be a lot more popular and also has more
features/bells and whistles than Bitbucket, so I wouldn't opposed to picking
GitHub/git over Bitbucket/Mercurial.
Original comment by davejohansen
on 12 Apr 2015 at 3:32
As we are moving stuff around, I was thinking about changing domain name for
downloads. I suggest to change include-what-you-use.com to
include-what-you-use.org. include-what-you-use.com will continue working as
before.
And another suggestion is to use include-what-you-use as canonical name, but
provide convenience shortcut iwyu whenever possible. For example, iwyu.org will
work as include-what-you-use.org. Does anybody have objections?
Original comment by vsap...@gmail.com
on 12 Apr 2015 at 11:00
None at all. On the contrary :-)
I'd also like to introduce an iwyu alias for the binary at some point.
Original comment by kim.gras...@gmail.com
on 13 Apr 2015 at 5:25
Here is the list of tasks I've prepared:
= Landing page and news =
I plan to have a landing page at include-what-you-use.org. I've considered
redirecting to GitHub the same way we are redirecting to Google Code now. But I
think the majority of notable projects prefer to have their own websites. And
I'm not sure if we'll be able to achieve all we want with GitHub's README.
After all, your own website gives much more control. Also, demise of Google
Code shows it might be not the best idea to rely entirely on 3rd-party service.
Nevertheless, README should be simplified and it should be more introductory.
So to some extend it can function as a landing page.
= Downloads =
GitHub has releases, but I plan to provide there only source archives. And to
host binary distributions for different platforms on include-what-you-use.org.
= Wiki =
Not sure if it makes sense to use GitHub's wiki. Maybe just add a directory
"docs" and put existing wiki pages there? Most likely will need to convert wiki
pages to Markdown.
= Issues =
Migrate issues with a provided tool [1]. New issues should be created on
GitHub, not sure if "project moved" flag will disable Google Code issues. The
plan is to make issues on Google Code read-only.
= Source =
Migrate source with a provided tool [1]. Immediate switch, no intermediate
committing to Google Code and syncing GitHub repo.
= Release =
I'd like to release IWYU 0.4 before migrating to GitHub.
What do you think? Is it a reasonable course of action?
[1] https://code.google.com/p/support-tools/wiki/MigratingToGitHub
Original comment by vsap...@gmail.com
on 26 Apr 2015 at 6:49
Sounds good!
The only drawback I can think of with moving from Wiki to Markdown is that
cross-linking between pages will be harder, but I don't think we do that much
anyway.
Let's see what we can do to package up the 0.4 release, I'll start a new
tracking bug for that work.
Original comment by kim.gras...@gmail.com
on 26 Apr 2015 at 7:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
legal...@xmission.com
on 6 Apr 2015 at 4:21