Re: Approval of pgcharm git repo?

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>
wrote:

> On 7 December 2015 at 18:38, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I opened a request for a git repo on 19th Nov ('pgcharm', to host the
> >> PostgreSQL charm for Juju. Username 'stub'). Is there anything else I
> >> need to get this approved or not, or am I just waiting for the Turkey
> >> to digest?
> >
> >
> > You were waiting :) I wonder if the system has stopped sending out
> > notificatoins...
>
> I don't recall seeing any go past...
>

Well, you woulndn't have seen it - it would've been the people who could
actually approve it :)

> > Is there a particular reason you'd want this hosted on
> git.postgresql.org
> > instead of launchpad where it appears to be now? And/or a particular
> reason
> > a service like github or bitbucket won't serve you better, given that
> they
> > have much more functionality?
>
> Perception really. We want signal that it is the 'official' PostgreSQL
> charm for and by the community, rather than a Canonical or Ubuntu
> specific thing. Moving to git seems the ideal time. I'll have a mirror
> on Launchpad to accept submissions, and maybe Github (but I'd like to
> keep everything Open Source if possible and would rather avoid keeping
> the master there)
>

That is actually one of the main reasons we *don't* grant repos there :)

Perception is better had by linking it from the main website, instead of
adding an additional maintenance burden for the people running the git
server. For the moment, that means using the software catalogue. We are
well aware we need some better way to deal with that -- we just haven't
gotten there yet.

But for now, that's the best way. I would suggest you go with either github
or bitbucket. As long as it's only the source code (and that's all you'd
get from git.postgresql.org anyway), and it's git, it doesn't really matter
where the repo is from an "openness" perspective, as every repo is a
primary repo. You could easily keep one each at those two services for
example..

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/