Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: About our GSoC projects

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: About our GSoC projects
Date: 2010-08-17 22:18:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Le 17/08/2010 16:08, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>>> So, my basic question is: how do we handle this?
>>>> I know Luis is interested to continue to work on his project. I don't
>>>> know for Adeel. Anyway, perhaps a good way to do this is to create two
>>>> dev branches on the pgadmin repo, one for each GSoC project. But I
>>>> wonder what we should do with the branches once they'll get merged on
>>>> the master branch.
>>> That doesn't help unless we give them both commit access, which isn't
>>> going to happen on the master repo. Ashesh is much higher up in the
>>> queue for that :-)
>> OK.
>>> I would suggest that they both create repos on github (or one of us
>>> does, and gives them access).
>> I can probably do that. I can create two repos, one for each project, on
>> my github account, apply the respective patch, and give them access to
>> it and to anyone else who wants to work on this. Adeel had trouble
>> working with git on Windows, and I wasn't able to help him on that.
>> Though I need to do it myself, so I should be able to help him next time.
>> Magnus, care to share your thoughts on this? you're much more
>> experienced with git than me :)
> That's not the way to use github.
> The proper way, if we want people to use github (fwiw, I think that's
> a good idea), is to create an authoritative mirror there, like we've
> done for PostgreSQL.

IIf I understand you correctly, the git server on will still
be the official one, and there will be a mirror on github.

> This could be done under the same account as
> postgres (which needs to be converted to a group, but that's a
> different thing), or a separate one for pgadmin. The users in question
> then create their own personal github accounts, and forks the pgadmin
> repository in there. Then they apply their patches to that, and keep
> working off that.

And, if they want to, they can add some of us as contributors to their
patches. I'm still thinkg about my GSoC "issue". IOW, if I take Luis's
project as an example, he should fork the github pgadmin repo, apply his
patch, commit, push it. Then he could add me as a contributor. We work
together to make it commitable, and at last I merge his repository into
the git on to commit it? Did I get something wrong?

> Github provides the tools you need to merge this back into mainline,
> if/when this is required. Until that is done, it's up to them to
> regularly merge with upstream - which git makes really easy.

With "git merge", right?

> If we want to go this way, I'll be happy to set up the github
> mirroring required for the main repository.

If I understood correctly, yeah, I would like that to happen. The
sooner, the better. I don't really know if we should use the same
account or a different one. I actually don't care.

> WRT git for windows - it works pretty well, except some things break
> on 64-bit windows (due to mingw/msys not working properly there). But
> that's a matter of doing "git fetch ; git merge" instead of "git
> pull". I'm told this is fixed in newer versions, but I haven't tried
> that myself.

OK. I need to do that on my windows PC.


In response to


pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-08-18 08:20:42
Subject: Re: About our GSoC projects
Previous:From: pgAdmin TracDate: 2010-08-17 21:15:50
Subject: Re: [pgAdmin III] #220: Show/hide columns in frmStatus's reports

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group