[reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal

Thu Jan 19 15:54:43 CST 2012

As a GIT user on windows, there is TortoiseGit,
http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/  which is actually the best interface
to GIT that I have seen, but it is still overkill for resiprocate.

-Aron

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Matthias Moetje <moetje at terasens.com>wrote:

> My code contributions have been quite small so far, but I agree with Scott
> and Aron: Yes for autotools, No to move away from SVN. ****
>
> I know about the advantages of Git, but I think reciprocate development
> wouldn’t benefit much from it. The volume of changes is low, so is the
> number of contributors. IMHO there is no need for hierarchical/distributed
> or local branches. What remains would be the time to install and learn
> something new. A look at http://help.github.com/win-set-up-git/ shows
> that it’s probably a lot more complicated than just installing Tortoise SVN
> ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthias Moetje****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* resiprocate-devel-bounces at resiprocate.org [mailto:
> resiprocate-devel-bounces at resiprocate.org] *On Behalf Of *Aron Rosenberg
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2012 19:00
> *To:* resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> *Subject:* Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging
> proposal****
>
> ** **
>
> I second Scott's view that Git would be overkill here for the project. I
> am all for the autotools integration. Keep in mind that Apple Mac and Apple
> iOS builds use XCode projects so those will need to be tested to make sure
> they don't break as well with the autotools changes.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -Aron****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Scott Godin <sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Daniel,****
>
> ** **
>
> First off, thanks for taking such a keen interest in improving
> resiprocate. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on the build tools stuff, as I've mainly
> been building in Windows over the years.  However I have seen in some
> previous projects a need to implement autotools builds for resip - so it
> sounds like it could be a good thing to me.****
>
> ** **
>
> On the GIT vs SVN topic, I would have to agree with Adam Roach's post from
> a few weeks back.  I think git may end up being a barrier to use,
> especially within the Windows community, due to it's increased complexity.
>  Also I'm not really seeing the advantages of moving to GIT.****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope others will respond with their opinions as well.  : )****
>
> ** **
>
> Scott Godin****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.com.au>
> wrote:****
>
>
> I'm keen to see some packages happen within the next 6 months so that
> they will appear in the next releases of the major Linux distributions
> (e.g. the next Debian, Fedora and Ubuntu)
>
> I think this is actually critical for the future of the project, because
> it means more people will link their apps to resiprocate, then they will
> feed stuff back into the project, and things will snowball from there
>
> It is a chicken-and-egg problem: which came first?  I understand there
> was previous concern about using autotools because no one is an expert
> on the subject.  If we had autotools, however, then we will get more
> help from packaging experts familiar with autotools, because everything
> will be familiar to them.  I'm willing to make the effort to get the
> project into that position.
>
> What I propose is that we take my autotools branch and proceed like so:
>
> a) prove that it builds with autotools on UNIX and that the Visual
> Studio on Windows build is not negatively impacted in any way (done,
> although a couple of the configure options are not implemented yet)
>
> b) prove that it runs all test cases (currently only one of them is
> built and executed, not hard to copy and paste for the others)
>
> c) prove that it meets the requirements for Debian, Fedora and OpenCSW -
> e.g. Debian raised questions about SONAME and ABI, this is documented in
> some old threads
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/07/msg00130.html
>
> d) prepare documentation showing
>  - old build commands and their equivalent with the new system
>  - steps to make release and build packages
>  - other useful autotools features that relate to this project
>
> e) merge all recent work from trunk into my autotools branch
>
> f) repeat tests (a), (b) and (c)
>
> g) merge the branch into trunk - completely replace the old configure
> script and Makefile system for UNIX
>
> h) make a reSIProcate 2.0 release candidate (I think it is good to jump
> to a new version number because of the SONAME and ABI stuff, it makes it
> more obvious that there is a new approach)
>
> i) packages go into Debian unstable and OpenCSW catalog
>
> In parallel, we could potentially be doing all this with git, running a
> parallel repository (for testing git) up to step (g), and then replacing
> SVN.  I've already been using git-svn as my local workspace, so I'm
> confident that we can introduce git in such a way.
>
> I'm happy to push ahead with these things but I really need to know that
> nobody has major objections or alternative proposals
>
> To see it all on a smaller scale, I would be using almost the same
> approach that I've used with other software:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gmod-linux/
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gmod-solaris/
>
> The timescale for this would be about 2-3 months, to ensure people have
> time to check things at each stage and object at any step if something
> surprises them
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20120119/adae4831/attachment.htm>