Migrate citeproc-js to GitHub?

CSL Development
1

I suspect that many will say this is long overdue: here has been a
steady trickle of firmly worded complaints about the awkwardness of
interacting with the citeproc-js sources.

Years ago, I attempted a conversion of the citeproc-js sources to git.
At that time, the conversion failed due to an unnamed head in the hg
revision tree. It’s actually very hard to remove one of these, and I
gave up. Apologies now for the years of inconvenience that followed.

The issue has come up again on my own desk, with a push to clean up
the documentation picture for citeproc-js, CSL-M, and Juris-M. The
obvious path forward is to lodge things in ReadTheDocs, and as I’m
already familiar with web-hooks in GitHub, moving citeproc-js over
there will save.

I’ve just taken a shot at conversion with fast-export
(https://github.com/frej/fast-export), and it is able to step past the
unnamed-head error with a --force option. The code that comes through
in git is correct: the test suite clears.

So moving to GitHub is possible. I’m thinking to do the following:

  1. Add a REPO-MIGRATION note to the citeproc-js sources on BitBucket.
  2. Push citeproc-js to the Juris-M space on GitHub.
  3. Set up the processor manual on ReadTheDocs.
  4. Remove the source from BitBucket, leaving behind the REPO-MIGRATION note.

Many on this list have a lot more experience with this sort of thing
than I do. Any suggestions on how to avoid general chaos would be most
welcome.

Frank

2

I don’t have any advice, but thank you for taking the time. While I never
thought bitbucket/mercurial was that much of a nuisance, this will be
very convenient, e.g. for adding citeproc-js as a submodule in the visual
editor.

So thank you!
Sebastian

3

I don’t have any particular advice for you. I’m happy to offer whatever
assistance I can.

The web2py-developers / web2py-users google group probably has a bit of
reasonable knowledge on this, as I know they ported parts of their
application out (pyDAL) and moved to readthedocs.

They are also very responsive to their email list.

And I second Sebastian’s notion.

Thank you!

-Mark

4

This is great news!! Thanks for doing this.–
Chris Maloney
NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
Building 45, 4AN36D-12
301-594-2842

“Mark Graves” wrote:

I don’t have any particular advice for you. I’m happy to offer whatever assistance I can.

The web2py-developers / web2py-users google group probably has a bit of reasonable knowledge on this, as I know they ported parts of their application out (pyDAL) and moved to readthedocs.

They are also very responsive to their email list.

And I second Sebastian’s notion.

Thank you!

-Mark

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Frank Bennett <biercenator@…25…mailto:biercenator@...25...> wrote:
I suspect that many will say this is long overdue: here has been a
steady trickle of firmly worded complaints about the awkwardness of
interacting with the citeproc-js sources.

Years ago, I attempted a conversion of the citeproc-js sources to git.
At that time, the conversion failed due to an unnamed head in the hg
revision tree. It’s actually very hard to remove one of these, and I
gave up. Apologies now for the years of inconvenience that followed.

The issue has come up again on my own desk, with a push to clean up
the documentation picture for citeproc-js, CSL-M, and Juris-M. The
obvious path forward is to lodge things in ReadTheDocs, and as I’m
already familiar with web-hooks in GitHub, moving citeproc-js over
there will save.

I’ve just taken a shot at conversion with fast-export
(https://github.com/frej/fast-export), and it is able to step past the
unnamed-head error with a --force option. The code that comes through
in git is correct: the test suite clears.

So moving to GitHub is possible. I’m thinking to do the following:

  1. Add a REPO-MIGRATION note to the citeproc-js sources on BitBucket.
  2. Push citeproc-js to the Juris-M space on GitHub.
  3. Set up the processor manual on ReadTheDocs.
  4. Remove the source from BitBucket, leaving behind the REPO-MIGRATION note.

Many on this list have a lot more experience with this sort of thing
than I do. Any suggestions on how to avoid general chaos would be most
welcome.

Frank

Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140

xbiblio-devel mailing list
xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

5

I’ve just taken a shot at conversion with fast-export
(GitHub - frej/fast-export: A mercurial to git converter using git-fast-import), and it is able to step past the
unnamed-head error with a --force option. The code that comes through
in git is correct: the test suite clears.

Alternatively, have you tried the GitHub Importer
(https://import.github.com/new)? It worked fine for me when we
transferred the test-suite recently.

So moving to GitHub is possible. I’m thinking to do the following:

  1. Add a REPO-MIGRATION note to the citeproc-js sources on BitBucket.
  2. Push citeproc-js to the Juris-M space on GitHub.
  3. Set up the processor manual on ReadTheDocs.
  4. Remove the source from BitBucket, leaving behind the REPO-MIGRATION note.

Many on this list have a lot more experience with this sort of thing
than I do. Any suggestions on how to avoid general chaos would be most
welcome.

Sounds good. Let me know if you run into any issues with ReadTheDocs
(you already know that the CSL docs are hosted there, too:
Citation Style Language - Documentation — Citation Style Language 1.0.1-dev documentation).

Rintze

6

Frank, looks like tags didn’t make it up to GitHub. Would be good to
have those.

(Thanks for doing this.)

7

That might just be a question of pushing those to the repo?

I found https://www.bitcraze.io/2014/02/officially-moved-to-github/
and https://codio.com/blog/moving-from-mercurial-to-git/ which have a
brief discussion on the topic.

8

Frank, looks like tags didn’t make it up to GitHub. Would be good to
have those.

Ugh. I’ll see what I can do about that. Might take awhile, but that’s
not a good thing to be dropping.

Frank

9

That might just be a question of pushing those to the repo?

I found Officially moved to GitHub | Bitcraze
and https://codio.com/blog/moving-from-mercurial-to-git/ which have a
brief discussion on the topic.

Thanks Rintze - I’ll take a look tomorrow.

10

That might just be a question of pushing those to the repo?

I found Officially moved to GitHub | Bitcraze
and https://codio.com/blog/moving-from-mercurial-to-git/ which have a
brief discussion on the topic.

Thanks Rintze - I’ll take a look tomorrow.

Yep, that’s all there was too it - they were in the local copy, just
needed to push them. All better now.