cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: Git?
Date Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:26:56 GMT

On Mar 3, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <> wrote:

> Since I sometimes lurk around infra, I'd be happy to help.

Great, thanks!

> However, I am not clear on what the goals are. Is this mainly about being able to commit
offline? Or is there a goal to attract new developers with a better github experience?

Git is just a different tool. It is not just about working offline (although this is certainly
there). It is a different workflow for dealing with the patches, merging, etc. Even "git log
-p" would warrant a migration :) While I am using git on the client over git-svn, the SVN
backend is often a hindrance.

The GitHub angle is about ease of collaboration - people who are tweaking and fixing Cayenne
for their own purpose will have a much easier mechanism to contribute back and maintain their
fixes until we review and commit. Though I guess this is entirely possible already with GitHub
SVN mirrors (and I am not holding my breath that we'd suddenly get an surge in contributions
because of that :)). So that's just streamlining things.

> Since one of the limitations of git is that you cannot clone less than the whole project,
I think we should consider splitting
into a separate repo, with tutorials under it.

Then we'll face a problem of releasing code from multiple repos. I am actually all for better
modularity, and docs is a good candidate to be taken out of the main project. Maybe we migrate
things as is initially and then think how to split it better on the other end?

BTW the docbook version of our docs is very compact, so it shouldn't create much overhead
for anyone. Current "main" git clone from GitHub is about 98 MB in size. This includes our
entire history, including probably some jar binaries from pre-maven days. Uncompressed docs
are 4.2 MB. I guess we may decide to split pre-3.0 code to get a smaller repo, but probably
not worth the trouble.

> I don't agree about leaving 'archive' behind in svn, unless we are sure we never want
anyone to find or work on those resources ever again. Once the main repo is moved, no-one
is likely to work on an old archive repository.

I am fine if we move everything over. Even though nobody is working on any of those.


> Ari
> On 3/03/13 8:48pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> Just found this Jira about Wicket migration to Git:
>> It has just enough info for us to kickstart the process I hope. So before I open
a similar Jira, I guess we need to decide 2 things:
>> 1. who'll be our infra/git volunteers. I am ready to be one. We'll likely need one
>> 2. The breakdown of the target Git repo. We have a bunch of top level directories
under here:
>> "main", "site" and "artwork" are all active and up-to-date. So those will become
individual repos. The rest are somewhat stale, but we don't want it to disappear of course.
I guess once we get access to the Git repo and see if we can use subfolders for repos, we'll
create a folder called "archive" and move the remaining stuff under it. Or just keep it in
SVN (which we'll likely keep around, just like Tapestry and Wicket did).
>> Thoughts?
>> Andrus
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Robert Zeigler <> wrote:
>>> Tapestry did make the switch to git awhile back. Unfortunately, due to finishing
up my schooling, I have not been as actively involved the last while as I would like. I might
have the git-switch discussions saved somewhere that I can dig through to see how to get the
process rolling.
>>> Robert
>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 11/13:52 PM , Michael Gentry wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure, but I kind of thought the Tapestry project had already
>>>> done it, so perhaps someone there could comment if they have.  I've
>>>> only used Git through GitHub thus far and am still a novice, but it
>>>> does have some nice features.
>>>> mrg
>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Andrus Adamchik <>
>>>>> I am not following infra-dev, but the question of Git came up on the
incubator list in an unrelated thread (see the link above). I'd love if we could do away with
svn and git-svn and go Git all the way. Anyone has any insight on where Infra stands on that
and how to sign up Cayenne for Git switchover?
>>>>> Andrus
> -- 
> -------------------------->
> Aristedes Maniatis
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

View raw message