Moving openmw off zinis github

[psi29a]

Great news!

Hi!

Sorry for the late reply, I don't check my mail all that often

I *think* it should be done now. The repo is listed on the OpenMW
github page for me at least.

It says "last updated 2 years ago" still though, but hopefully you
should be able to fast-forward it to zini's latest master without any
problems. I don't think I've added any commits after he took over.

Let me know if there's anything else

Cheers,
Nico

@Zini: At this point, I see two options available to us as a workflow.

1) Do what we are currently doing, where your repo is the defacto working repo and either you will send a pull request or we will just pull in your remote and merge. This allows us to keep what we are doing without bugging you too much and gives us the ability to upload binaries to the tagged releases. We can do this retro-actively for older releases too.

2) Go full tilt, and everyone switch to using the OpenMW's openmw repo. Core members (Yourself, Scrawl, and KCat) have the ability to develop directly, other members will do it the traditional way of forking and sending pull requests.

Of course, if there are other possibilities... we are open for discussion, as always, we defer to you Zini, our benevolent dictator.

[psi29a]

As an example, have a look here:
https://github.com/OpenMW/openmw/releas ... nmw-0.28.0

Sorry raevol if I stole your thunder, I just did this as an example. Feel free to back-fill and of course, the handle the next big release!

[lgromanowski]

As an example, have a look here:
https://github.com/OpenMW/openmw/releas ... nmw-0.28.0

Sorry raevol if I stole your thunder, I just did this as an example. Feel free to back-fill and of course, the handle the next big release!

Wow, this looks great

[raevol]

As an example, have a look here:
https://github.com/OpenMW/openmw/releas ... nmw-0.28.0

Sorry raevol if I stole your thunder, I just did this as an example. Feel free to back-fill and of course, the handle the next big release!

This is awesome! Very nice!

[Zini]

I think we should go for option #1, but with a few modifications. The general idea here is that I would like to change the workflow as little as possible and keep a single point of integration during regular development. With the amount of development we currently have it is pretty hard to keep track of what is going on already. If multiple people start merge changes into the primary repository, I suspect I will run into problems.

Here are the proposed modifications:

- The org-repo's master branch should be kept in sync with my master branch. I don't know if it is possible to automate that, but we should definitely look into it. If not, we can push or pull in regular intervals.
- We register the org-repo on ohloh (and similar sites) as the project's main repository.
- I will push the release branch to the org-repo when it is ready (same with the tag).
- Scrawl and Chris get write access to the org-repo too.
- Should something like the internet-loss I had last year happen again (which I certainly don't hope or expect), Scrawl's or Chris' repository can temporarily take over the role of my repository.
- During the release preparations Scrawl and Chris can push their release branch fixes directly to the org-repo. Merges during the release process are a bit more time critical (we want to get out new RCs quickly to get more testing results). Also, last minute fixes are generally a much more simple matter than features merges. I think I am okay with bypassing the single point of integration (me) in this case for the sake of efficiency and convenience for our core developers.

Are me okay with this arrangement?

btw. I think it was said before, but to make that absolutely clear: That is for the next release. We will change over to the procedure after 0.29.0 is done.

[wheybags]

If we're going to use the org repo, I really don't see why we'd keep usin your fork as well? Why not just have people send pull requests to the org repo directly? Just becuase a few other people will have push access doesn't mean they have to use it, they can still send pull requests anyway. Hell, I send pull requests to my own repo.

[Zini]

The only way to do what you suggest would be to essentially abandon my own repository on github and replace it with the org-repo, because I will definitely not juggle two remote repositories. Then everyone will have to change the repository they have to send pull requests to and adjust their remotes. We have to update the new developer documentation and so on.

As mentioned before I would like to change as little as possible.

[wheybags]

It just seems what you suggested is a half measure and we'd be better off doing nothing at all.
It wouldn't be too disruptive. Sure, there'd be a few incorrect pull requests at first, but if you just leave a comment and close them then people will start getting the picture pretty fast.

[psi29a]

I agree, nothing should be official until after 0.29's release.

I've already added Zini's repo as a remote and pull in everything (including tags)... which is how I managed to get the openmw 0.28.0 release setup there.

I'm OK with (currently) letting the Org's repo being the official but Zini's repo being the main working repo since it is what everyone is currently sending pull requests too. Little disruption as possible is key.

However... github handles redirections. So anyone sending push requests to korslund/openmw automatically go to OpenMW/openmw. We can ask github, with Zini's permission to 'move' (really a rename or symlink) to OpenMW/openmw which will then point everyone to OpenMW/openmw without any developers having to do anything.

I see this as the path of least resistance. Everyone except Zini, Scrawl or Chris are still required to send pull requests, doing exactly what they have always done. I trust that Scrawl and Chris would also defer to Zini, or if anything, just keep doing what they are doing and send pull requests to Zini (which go to OpenMW/openmw as indicated above) unless it is an emergency in which case, they can do the merges themselves in OpenMW/openmw.

[Jyby]

+1, I think a OpenMW group would also make the project more official and not related to one particular person but a community entity.

We could also let the PR folks here create content to doll the group up! They've done a wonderful job so far with youtube and the site.

But, I think we should still maintain the wiki. The wiki is a great way for us to have more control and fine tuning vs github.

We just need to keep the documentations more relevant.