cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aristedes Maniatis <...@maniatis.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (INFRA-5936) Migrate Apache Cayenne to Git
Date Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:57:22 GMT
I recommend that we instead go for 3.0 and later all being in git. That means that we can move
to a new release development process and not worry about the complexity of merging commits
from git to svn by hand.

The size of that repository is likely to be quite small since I don't think we have many binary
files after 3.0.

Ari


On 26/04/13 11:19pm, Michael Gentry wrote:
> I'd be fine with 3.2 onward being Git and 3.0/3.1/2.x remaining in SVN (not
> read-only, as we may do patches, especially on 3.0 and 3.1).  6 GB is
> pretty impressive.  I don't think I want to download that.  Would take all
> night, if not more.
>
> mrg
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>wrote:
>
>>
>>> I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do
>> commits get from the small one to the 'real' one?
>>>
>>> Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive
>> which no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point
>> since we have svn to do exactly that.
>>
>> Yeah, I was talking about a read-only archive. And yes, existing SVN will
>> cover that. We can probably delete ported branches from SVN HEAD to reduce
>> confusion (of course they will still be in history).
>>
>>> The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like
>> ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good
>> or bad, or we even careā€¦
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do
>> commits get from the small one to the 'real' one?
>>>
>>> Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive
>> which no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point
>> since we have svn to do exactly that.
>>>
>>> The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like
>> ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good
>> or bad, or we even care...
>>>
>>> Ari
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/04/13 10:12am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>> So essentially the question is whether we want 2 Git repos (a smaller
>> active repo and full history archive), or whether we want to keep the
>> archive in SVN.
>>>>
>>>> I am fine with the second approach if that helps with the migration.
>> Essentially this means limiting trunk to 3.0 commits and branches to 3.0
>> and 3.1. If everyone ok with this, I will provide some guidance to David,
>> with specific rev numbers and branch names.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/04/13 8:35am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Ari Maniatis (JIRA) <jira@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5936?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642306#comment-13642306]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ari Maniatis commented on INFRA-5936:
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the git repository will end up being 6Gb, could we look at
>> reducing the size of the problem by eliminating some branches or discarding
>> history older than a certain age?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking about that too. My current idea is to just create
a
>> second repo for the current work, forking from a point where we switched to
>> Maven and dropped all the jar dependencies. And keeping the 6GB one for the
>> history.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no clean way to do that. In fact the thing which stopped me
>> from moving from svn to git in my work was that git has no way to clone a
>> partial repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we could:
>>>>>
>>>>> * discard all branches older than 3.0
>>>>> * discard all commits older than when we started work on 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>> That would drastically reduce the size of the repo and the difficulty
>> of the migration. And really, how often do we look at blame?
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I don't really care either way (I still like svn!), but 6Gb
>> will prevent a lot of people from contributing some small patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ari
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -------------------------->
>>>>> Aristedes Maniatis
>>>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------->
>>> Aristedes Maniatis
>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

Mime
View raw message