[OSM-dev] OSM binary format (pbf) 1.0 is in osmosis trunk.

Scott Crosby scrosby at cs.rice.edu
Sun Oct 17 20:07:16 BST 2010


On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> Scott Crosby wrote:
>
>> I think the perfect permanent place for Stefan's implementation, and your
>> idea of wrapping it up as a debian package, is with the
>> http://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary main repository. Is there an OSM GIT
>> I can clone it to, or should it really be put into OSM SVN?
>>
>
> I don't like git, and I especially dislike github (not using sourceforge
> either); but that's a personal thing, so don't let that discourage you from
> continuing to use it for development. I'll just make sure every now and then
> that there is a working version in SVN.
>

I don't really care what form the master repository takes, whether it be SVN
or git, or where. If SVN makes things easier for the community, thats fine
with me. (Git's SVN integration is very sweet.) My proposal was to put the
pbf2osm C program in the same repository as the protobuf definitions.

If the repo is to live in SVN, would you like to propose a location in the
OSM SVN repo for the code to live?

(With the below text, I am trying to explain git a bit more, please do not
read it as advocacy for a central GIT repo for OSM projects.)

(My dislike of git stems largely from ignorance and is likely to vanish over
> time. At the moment I have grown used to the one-stop-shop that is our SVN;
> with git I miss the option to say "check out all OSM projects"


Having one overarching repo for all OSM projects is not 'the git way', but
different projects can and should live in different repo's, and with
subpackage support, a tree of projects can be checked out, although I will
admit that I've never used that feature.


> , as well as the option to commit to trunk for all OSM projects without
> first signing up to external services and/or find out who the maintainer is
> and ask them for permission.)
>

With git, there's no requirement of having a defined central server, just a
bunch of 'rendezvous points' where code can be published and
downloaded/integrated by others. Anyone can make one, and there can be more
than one. OSM could run a centralized one, with an ACL limiting who can push
to it, analogous to current SVN. That doesn't preclude anyone from having a
clone of the repo on github (or anywhere else) where they can publish and
share their own work, with their own ACL's, and a local clone/checkout,
where they develop and debug their own work. Also, each clone/working tree
contains the entire history since the beginning, so there's a lot more
safety and backup, this supports strong disconnected operation.

Using my osmosis work as an example: There is the master SVN repository.
Long before I got commit privileges there, I was publishing my branches and
development on github. I also keep a local repository for stuff that is not
ready to be public. Without git, I wouldn't have had a workspace repo where
I could develop my changes and create clean patches. Fortunately, the
git-svn integration is very sweet. I was able to make these clones for my
own use, and push to SVN when ready.

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20101017/f12cbce2/attachment.html>


More information about the dev mailing list