https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
On 12/05/16 11:52 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
Is gitg (a gnome git frontend) suited for Workstation?
On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 13:01 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Is gitg (a gnome git frontend) suited for Workstation?
It's a useful application, but I don't think we should have it installed by default. It would be pretty confusing to non-developers, and I think most developers would not use it.
It would be cool to feature it in GNOME Software.
Michael
On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 14:52 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
We should have it. Little things like this can be our edge over other distros.
I would also like to include the entire @c-development group (Autotools, make, GCC, valgrind, etc.). This will be useful for enough people that I think it's worth having for the convenience, even if it makes the install media slightly larger.
Michael
If I may throw in my two cents as an end user, with a name like "Workstation" it makes sense to have things like git preinstalled.
Liam Murphy *www.lpmdesigns.com http://www.lpmdesigns.com* Web Developer, Graphics Designer 541-613-7022
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 14:52 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
We should have it. Little things like this can be our edge over other distros.
I would also like to include the entire @c-development group (Autotools, make, GCC, valgrind, etc.). This will be useful for enough people that I think it's worth having for the convenience, even if it makes the install media slightly larger.
Michael
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
I would also like to include the entire @c-development group (Autotools, make, GCC, valgrind, etc.). This will be useful for enough people that I think it's worth having for the convenience, even if it makes the install media slightly larger
Would folks actually use it? Out here in the Real World(TM) we compile code on build boxes, not our desktops. I think that git is useful, an entire development toolchain not so much. Nothing is stopping people from getting that if they want it (which I suspect some will), but where do we stop? Let's also include Erlang, R, Haskell, Ruby, every Python module, and every other language known to man. I think that this invites a hard look at "who is our target audience and what do they want?" While I'm sure that *some* people would want an entire toolchain, I suspect it to be a vast minority of the target audience.
Agreed, tools like git that is useful for "everyone" as in users of any language make sense.
If we want toolchains to be provided by default, the best middleground IMO is to select them during the Anaconda installation, otherwise it can feel bloated if they're jam packed in.
Liam Murphy *www.lpmdesigns.com http://www.lpmdesigns.com* Web Developer, Graphics Designer 541-613-7022
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
I would also like to include the entire @c-development group (Autotools, make, GCC, valgrind, etc.). This will be useful for enough people that I think it's worth having for the convenience, even if it makes the install media slightly larger
Would folks actually use it? Out here in the Real World(TM) we compile code on build boxes, not our desktops. I think that git is useful, an entire development toolchain not so much. Nothing is stopping people from getting that if they want it (which I suspect some will), but where do we stop? Let's also include Erlang, R, Haskell, Ruby, every Python module, and every other language known to man. I think that this invites a hard look at "who is our target audience and what do they want?" While I'm sure that *some* people would want an entire toolchain, I suspect it to be a vast minority of the target audience. -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:34:41PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
Python module, and every other language known to man. I think that this invites a hard look at "who is our target audience and what do they want?" While I'm sure that *some* people would want an entire toolchain, I suspect it to be a vast minority of the target audience.
For workstation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD#Target_Audience
On 05/12/2016 05:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:34:41PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
Python module, and every other language known to man. I think that this invites a hard look at "who is our target audience and what do they want?" While I'm sure that *some* people would want an entire toolchain, I suspect it to be a vast minority of the target audience.
For workstation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD#Target_Audience
Cases 2, 3 and 4 seem to apply, IMHO.
I also think that since git is a command-line tool, it doesn't neatly align itself with being installable via GNOME Software, either.
I see four possible approaches (from easiest to hardest): 1) Do nothing; git is installed by 'dnf' unless it's pulled in by something else. 2) Install git by default. 3) Locate or develop a useful git GUI tool (or Nautilus integration?) and promote that as an application or plugin through GNOME Software 4) Package up and promote a series of promoted Developer Suites that include it. (I'm thinking things like the equivalent of Microsoft Visual Studio or Apple Xcode; a complete set of tools and an IDE powering them).
Personally, I'd love to see 4) selected and worked on as a medium-to-long-term goal in the Workstation SIG, ideally aligned with the Modularity work (with an eye on building a comprehensive suite of tools that would be installed together as a module).
As a short-term solution, I think there's real value in either option 2 or 3. But given that git is so heavily used and has no discoverable installation mechanism, I'm not in favor of remaining with the current state.
Regarding the 4th option, would GNOME Builder be a good starting point for this? It's still a ways from feature complete, but it's the best option for an IDE written to the GNOME HIG to follow the requirements for inclusion as a default application.
Stefan Nuxoll stefan@nuxoll.eu.org
Subject: Re: Why isn't git installed in Workstation? To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org From: sgallagh@redhat.com Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:49 -0400
On 05/12/2016 05:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:34:41PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
Python module, and every other language known to man. I think that this invites a hard look at "who is our target audience and what do they want?" While I'm sure that *some* people would want an entire toolchain, I suspect it to be a vast minority of the target audience.
For workstation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD#Target_Audience
Cases 2, 3 and 4 seem to apply, IMHO.
I also think that since git is a command-line tool, it doesn't neatly align itself with being installable via GNOME Software, either.
I see four possible approaches (from easiest to hardest): 1) Do nothing; git is installed by 'dnf' unless it's pulled in by something else. 2) Install git by default. 3) Locate or develop a useful git GUI tool (or Nautilus integration?) and promote that as an application or plugin through GNOME Software 4) Package up and promote a series of promoted Developer Suites that include it. (I'm thinking things like the equivalent of Microsoft Visual Studio or Apple Xcode; a complete set of tools and an IDE powering them).
Personally, I'd love to see 4) selected and worked on as a medium-to-long-term goal in the Workstation SIG, ideally aligned with the Modularity work (with an eye on building a comprehensive suite of tools that would be installed together as a module).
As a short-term solution, I think there's real value in either option 2 or 3. But given that git is so heavily used and has no discoverable installation mechanism, I'm not in favor of remaining with the current state.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 05/12/2016 07:49 PM, Stefan Nuxoll wrote:
Regarding the 4th option, would GNOME Builder be a good starting point for this? It's still a ways from feature complete, but it's the best option for an IDE written to the GNOME HIG to follow the requirements for inclusion as a default application.
Stefan Nuxoll <stefan@nuxoll.eu.org mailto:stefan@nuxoll.eu.org>
Well, I don't think 4) necessarily needs to be a *default* application. (Actually, quite the opposite; it should be easy to discover and install, but probably not included by default).
I don't have a particular opinion on the tool selected, but I'd love to see a discussion followed by a decision and then execution on *something* to satisfy that problem space.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:49:03PM -0600, Stefan Nuxoll wrote:
Regarding the 4th option, would GNOME Builder be a good starting point for this? It's still a ways from feature complete, but it's the best option for an IDE written to the GNOME HIG to follow the requirements for inclusion as a default application.
Maybe. I think there's a balance between having something compelling and new vs. providing a comfortable environment that people can slide right into.
For case #4 (large organization developer), Eclipse is probably the way to go. There's a large community around it already, so we wouldn't be starting from scratch. It's used by 23% of developers according to the Stack Overflow developer survey¹.
Once the produce the full data dump from that survey, we could even cross-reference the Workstation target audiences to preferred environment, to make data-driven decisions here.
1. https://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2016#technology-developm...
On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 09:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:49:03PM -0600, Stefan Nuxoll wrote:
Regarding the 4th option, would GNOME Builder be a good starting point for this? It's still a ways from feature complete, but it's the best option for an IDE written to the GNOME HIG to follow the requirements for inclusion as a default application.
Maybe. I think there's a balance between having something compelling and new vs. providing a comfortable environment that people can slide right into.
For right now, the development target for Builder is quite narrow - to be a compelling environment for developing native applications for the GNOME desktop. And there's a lot of work just for that target - xdg-app support, UI editor, debugging, and so forth and so on. Making it a universal entry point for all development on Fedora is completely beyond scope.
For case #4 (large organization developer), Eclipse is probably the way to go. There's a large community around it already, so we wouldn't be starting from scratch. It's used by 23% of developers according to the Stack Overflow developer survey¹.
I think Eclipse should be easily acessible, easy to install, and work well on Fedora. On the other hand, I'd be pretty hestitant to make it a focus of development efforts... it's very possible to write plugins that add user interface to Eclipse. It's much harder to create great experiences around Eclipse.
Once the produce the full data dump from that survey, we could even cross-reference the Workstation target audiences to preferred environment, to make data-driven decisions here.
We need to cater to the diversity that you see in the initial survey numbers - make sure that whether your preferred environment is Eclipse, Atom, or Vim, it's easy to get it running on Fedora. That's more important than figuring out whether we should install Eclipse or Vim by default (I don't know if you were suggesting that :-)
I think that we can do some things that will make life better for wide classes of developers - at least any developer who doesn't entirely live within an IDE.
For example, we can look at doing better integration of git into the terminal experience, we can make vagrant work better out of the box, and so forth.
Installing git by default seems to be a simple thing of this class and I'm in favor of it.
There are also things we should be doing to develop our ecosystem that aren't necessarily of interest to a wide number of existing developers. Making GNOME application development better with GNOME Builder is one of these. Another I think we should be doing is making it really slick and easy to create applications for deployment on Fedora Atomic Host.
- Owen
On 12/05/16 04:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Cases 2, 3 and 4 seem to apply, IMHO.
I also think that since git is a command-line tool, it doesn't neatly align itself with being installable via GNOME Software, either.
I see four possible approaches (from easiest to hardest):
- Do nothing; git is installed by 'dnf' unless it's pulled in by something else.
- Install git by default.
- Locate or develop a useful git GUI tool (or Nautilus integration?) and
promote that as an application or plugin through GNOME Software 4) Package up and promote a series of promoted Developer Suites that include it. (I'm thinking things like the equivalent of Microsoft Visual Studio or Apple Xcode; a complete set of tools and an IDE powering them).
Personally, I'd love to see 4) selected and worked on as a medium-to-long-term goal in the Workstation SIG, ideally aligned with the Modularity work (with an eye on building a comprehensive suite of tools that would be installed together as a module).
Design Suite is using Sparkleshare which include access to git repository for Design team. I wonder if there is an equivalent in Fedora repository. Nautilus integration from case #3 seems interesting because of easier workflow similar to the like of Dropbox, Google Drive and Owncloud.
On 05/13/2016 08:40 AM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
probably we should throw in hub too?
Probably a great idea, but I think we should have someone look at updating to the latest version in Fedora... right now it's a complete rewrite behind upstream.
On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 09:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 05/13/2016 08:40 AM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
probably we should throw in hub too?
Probably a great idea, but I think we should have someone look at updating to the latest version in Fedora... right now it's a complete rewrite behind upstream.
Going off on a tangent here, but is there a similar commandline tool for pagure.io ?
On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:59:25 -0400 Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 09:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 05/13/2016 08:40 AM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
probably we should throw in hub too?
Probably a great idea, but I think we should have someone look at updating to the latest version in Fedora... right now it's a complete rewrite behind upstream.
Going off on a tangent here, but is there a similar commandline tool for pagure.io ?
It's still pretty bare, but there's 'pag'
and it's packaged up already.
kevin
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:38:14AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:59:25 -0400 Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 09:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 05/13/2016 08:40 AM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
probably we should throw in hub too?
Probably a great idea, but I think we should have someone look at updating to the latest version in Fedora... right now it's a complete rewrite behind upstream.
Going off on a tangent here, but is there a similar commandline tool for pagure.io ?
It's still pretty bare, but there's 'pag'
and it's packaged up already.
Following up on this conversation... we don't have to get into language stack choices to pull in git. It's a fairly universal tool at this point and it's hard to imagine a developer not using it at this point. I think hub would be useful too, iff. updated.
On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 14:52 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
+1 from me for including git in the default install, if it matters.
+1 from me too
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Clasen" mclasen@redhat.com To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:54:52 AM Subject: Re: Why isn't git installed in Workstation?
On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 14:52 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
+1 from me for including git in the default install, if it matters. -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
-- Rex
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04:41AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
FWIW, the difference according to dnf info is git-core is about 17 MB on disk, while git adds:
* itself (2.2 MB on disk) * git-core-doc (11+ MB on disk) * 3 Perl modules (~150 KB on disk)
Perl is already present, so there's not a huge dep stack coming in when I install 'git' on F24 Beta, just three modules.
The discussion in IRC seems to indicate we're not as worried about bloat as we are about providing useful tooling out of the box.
I'll file a pull request for comps for this since we have the votes.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:27:36AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04:41AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
FWIW, the difference according to dnf info is git-core is about 17 MB on disk, while git adds:
- itself (2.2 MB on disk)
- git-core-doc (11+ MB on disk)
- 3 Perl modules (~150 KB on disk)
Perl is already present, so there's not a huge dep stack coming in when I install 'git' on F24 Beta, just three modules.
The discussion in IRC seems to indicate we're not as worried about bloat as we are about providing useful tooling out of the box.
I'll file a pull request for comps for this since we have the votes.
And, viola: https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/4
On 05/17/2016 11:27 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04:41AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
FWIW, the difference according to dnf info is git-core is about 17 MB on disk, while git adds:
- itself (2.2 MB on disk)
- git-core-doc (11+ MB on disk)
- 3 Perl modules (~150 KB on disk)
Perl is already present, so there's not a huge dep stack coming in when I install 'git' on F24 Beta, just three modules.
The discussion in IRC seems to indicate we're not as worried about bloat as we are about providing useful tooling out of the box.
I'll file a pull request for comps for this since we have the votes.
Is git-core-doc a strict requirement? (If it was, I would think that git-core would be requiring it, not 'git'). Maybe we could make that a Recommends: and not include it on the install media? That certainly seems like the largest savings.
Of course, the obvious tradeoff is the lack of documentation...
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 08:23 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Is git-core-doc a strict requirement? (If it was, I would think that git-core would be requiring it, not 'git'). Maybe we could make that a Recommends: and not include it on the install media? That certainly seems like the largest savings.
Of course, the obvious tradeoff is the lack of documentation...
Is it required for 'git help' to work?
Michael
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
I'd prefer the lack of perl, the big bit of useful functionality from a developer workflow that covers functions in the perl functionality is git send-email I think (I wish it just didn't need perl)
Peter
On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
I'm +1 to adding git
We're currently discussing in #fedora-workstation the pro's and cons of including just git-core or git (which also pulls in perl). I'm ok either way.
I'd prefer the lack of perl, the big bit of useful functionality from a developer workflow that covers functions in the perl functionality is git send-email I think (I wish it just didn't need perl)
git-send-email actually is *not* pulled in by the 'git' package. To get that, you need to install git-email or git-all.
'git' gives you, among other things, git-am, git-submodule.
This splitiness is not helpful for a developer workstation - to see some tutorial telling to use git am and then see:
$ git am foo.patch git: 'am' is not a git command. See 'git --help'
We definitely shouldn't go less than 'git', 'git-all' might be a bit much though, with the cvs/svn/tk, dependencies.
- Owen
On 05/18/2016 06:19 AM, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
+1 for adding git (or at least git-core).
+1 from me as well.
I strongly suspect we already had it installed by default in F22 and F23, but it got accidentally killed off with the removal of devassistant in F24 that was pulling it in.
Kalev
I'll reply to the original mail.
----- Original Message -----
https://twitter.com/SparksWG3K/status/730826470147428352
This seems like a perfectly good question to me. Far and away the preferred VCS, and it's not like it wastes a ton of disk space.
Through PackageKit-command-not-found, typing "git clone ..." on the command-line will offer to install the package with that command.
I'm not sure that "git" is super-special here, installing it would be part of installing your development environment, say, python virtual env and a bunch of modules, or Atom and your node.js bundles.
On 19 May 2016 2:08 p.m., "Bastien Nocera" bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
Through PackageKit-command-not-found, typing "git clone ..." on the command-line will offer to install the package with that command.
That won't help you when configuring the path to git in your IDE though, and if that IDE happens to the proprietary it can't suggest or pull-in git.
----- Original Message -----
On 19 May 2016 2:08 p.m., "Bastien Nocera" < bnocera@redhat.com > wrote:
Through PackageKit-command-not-found, typing "git clone ..." on the command-line will offer to install the package with that command.
That won't help you when configuring the path to git in your IDE though, and if that IDE happens to the proprietary it can't suggest or pull-in git.
As opposed to all the other external tools that it wouldn't ship itself?
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bastien Nocera -
Christian Schaller -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jon Stanley -
Kalev Lember -
Kevin Fenzi -
Liam Murphy -
Luya Tshimbalanga -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Catanzaro -
Owen Taylor -
Paul W. Frields -
Peter Robinson -
Ray Strode -
Rex Dieter -
Richard Turner -
Stefan Nuxoll -
Stephen Gallagher