New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Jean Delvare]

Hi all,

I am in the process of moving i2c-tools away from lm-sensors.org to a
new home. My reasons for doing this are:
* The i2c tools are useful way beyond lm-sensors, and on the other hand
  lm-sensors works fine on many recent systems without I2C support at
  all. There has been a lot of confusion about i2c and lm-sensors in
  the past and I hope that moving i2c-tools somewhere else will help
  put an end to it.
* Administration of lm-sensors.org isn't always as good as I would
  like. I am not blaming our host, we get everything for free and it
  isn't that bad, but apparently our admin is busy with more important
  things so I don't want to put additional load on him.
* I hope that a clean, simple, standalone project will more easily
  attract extra developers.

Now the question is: where do we go? At first I had considered Savannah
[1], essentially because I have other projects hosted there. One
problem though is that they are rather strict when it comes to
licenses. In particular, GPL v2 only code isn't good enough for them,
while one piece of i2c-tools is released under that license.

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/

An alternative I have considered since then is to put the code on
kernel.org. After all, i2c-tools are tightly linked to the Linux
kernel at the moment.

There are pros and cons both ways. At Savannah we'd have a Subversion
tree, which is what we already have for i2c-tools at the moment so
importing the code should be easy. Creating accounts for extra
contributors is easy. We get a bug tracking system and web space.

At kernel.org, we would have a git tree. More powerful than Subversion,
but also a little more complicated, and we probably don't need that
much power for such a small project. I'm not sure how easy it is to
import a Subversion repository into a git tree. No bug tracking system.
No accounts for contributors. The web pages would probably go in
i2c.wiki.kernel.org. Might become a little confusing if i2c-tools ever
supports another OS than Linux.

And there are other options available, such as Gna! or BerliOS. Never
used these myself though.

[2] https://gna.org/
[3] http://developer.berlios.de/

As far as I am concerned, I can live with all options, but what I
really want to know is: which option would potential future
contributors prefer? Please speak up if you care!

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 893 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

(oops, dropped the CCs accidently on the first try)

> [3] http://developer.berlios.de/
>
> As far as I am concerned, I can live with all options, but what I
> really want to know is: which option would potential future
> contributors prefer? Please speak up if you care!

Berlios works for me, it hosts the C64-related projects I am doing with
some friends. SVN, Bugtracker, Mailinglists work as one would expect...
SocketCAN is also hosted there.

I just had a glimpse, they seem to accept all OSI-approved licenses, so
no problem with that. Looks they also offer git now, if that change
would ever be needed ;)

I think it would be a reasonable choice, sounds at least better to me
than the scenarios you sketched.

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
  Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:37:17 Jean Delvare wrote:
> And there are other options available, such as Gna! or BerliOS. Never
> used these myself though.
>
> [2] https://gna.org/
> [3] http://developer.berlios.de/
>
> As far as I am concerned, I can live with all options, but what I
> really want to know is: which option would potential future
> contributors prefer? Please speak up if you care!

any reason for not looking at sf.net ?  they provide svn and everything else 
needed ... they dont provide git currently though so an easy upgrade path like 
is available with berlios is out of the question.

a quick survey based on packages in gentoo shows sf.net is significantly more 
popular atm than berlios and gna (combined even).

but yes, i could live with any of those sites ...
-mike

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Paul Goyette]

On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:37:17 Jean Delvare wrote:

> As far as I am concerned, I can live with all options, but what I
> really want to know is: which option would potential future
> contributors prefer? Please speak up if you care!

I can live with almost anything!  :)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Paul Goyette   | PGP DSS Key fingerprint: |  E-mail addresses:      |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 |  paul at whooppee.com   |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
|                  |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:56:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:37:17 Jean Delvare wrote:
> > And there are other options available, such as Gna! or BerliOS. Never
> > used these myself though.
> >
> > [2] https://gna.org/
> > [3] http://developer.berlios.de/
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, I can live with all options, but what I
> > really want to know is: which option would potential future
> > contributors prefer? Please speak up if you care!
> 
> any reason for not looking at sf.net ?  they provide svn and everything else 
> needed ... they dont provide git currently though so an easy upgrade path like 
> is available with berlios is out of the question.

Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up with
spam. I have had too much trouble with that site as a user in the past
so I did not even consider it as an option as a developer.

> a quick survey based on packages in gentoo shows sf.net is significantly more 
> popular atm than berlios and gna (combined even).

I'm not surprised, Sourceforge is really big. Probably berlios is
essentially popular in Germany and gna essentially popular in France.

> but yes, i could live with any of those sites ...

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 322 bytes --]


> Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up with

It is slow at times and even had annoying downtimes. Let's just hope the
alternatives won't grow that big ;)

   Wolfram

-- 
  Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Tony Lindgren]

* Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:31]:
> 
> > Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up with
> 
> It is slow at times and even had annoying downtimes. Let's just hope the
> alternatives won't grow that big ;)

A git tree at kernel.org and a mailing list at vger.kernel.org works
well. You could have separate branches in the master git tree and
automatically fetch other people's branches in to that with minor
scripting.

Also there's almost zero spam on the vger lists and no subscription
is necessary.

Just my 2c worth,

Tony

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:38:46 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:31]:
> > > Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up with
> >
> > It is slow at times and even had annoying downtimes. Let's just hope the
> > alternatives won't grow that big ;)
>
> A git tree at kernel.org and a mailing list at vger.kernel.org works
> well. You could have separate branches in the master git tree and
> automatically fetch other people's branches in to that with minor
> scripting.

but no tracker system.  any package that wants to integrate/work with 
downstream distros needs a tracker.  things get lost on mailing lists.
-mike

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Tony Lindgren]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:48]:
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:38:46 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:31]:
> > > > Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up with
> > >
> > > It is slow at times and even had annoying downtimes. Let's just hope the
> > > alternatives won't grow that big ;)
> >
> > A git tree at kernel.org and a mailing list at vger.kernel.org works
> > well. You could have separate branches in the master git tree and
> > automatically fetch other people's branches in to that with minor
> > scripting.
> 
> but no tracker system.  any package that wants to integrate/work with 
> downstream distros needs a tracker.  things get lost on mailing lists.

Maybe patchwork + bugzilla could do the job?

http://patchwork.kernel.org/

Tony

Re: New home for i2c-tools (RFC)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1177 bytes --]

On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:56:15 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:48]:
> > On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:38:46 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> [090129 08:31]:
> > > > > Sourceforge is fat and slow and their mailing lists are filled up
> > > > > with
> > > >
> > > > It is slow at times and even had annoying downtimes. Let's just hope
> > > > the alternatives won't grow that big ;)
> > >
> > > A git tree at kernel.org and a mailing list at vger.kernel.org works
> > > well. You could have separate branches in the master git tree and
> > > automatically fetch other people's branches in to that with minor
> > > scripting.
> >
> > but no tracker system.  any package that wants to integrate/work with
> > downstream distros needs a tracker.  things get lost on mailing lists.
>
> Maybe patchwork + bugzilla could do the job?
>
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/

if we're looking to bring more people into the process and lower the bar for 
entry, i think patchwork is taking that in very much the opposite direction
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]