Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
From: David Jencks <david.a.jencks@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Git dies of lack of interest?
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhtWkebRc-Rnk4ZgUgjSQTooc8XkQrjAcawtBexe3Yqjn4xhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:50:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8E96557B-85C6-4BA2-A560-090FD7A5B18A@yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CALhtWkfuq1URX3+F+jsHBtF4RUubwzyrk8h4MQQ5s83rszmTHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <565DA85E.5050406@apache.org>
 <CAMm6HcDKOEKcogLZxL+BmNmWEzgJhGjybE6n0z3oiJqsP9tGOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALhtWkeVXO26LsDmjzuWQbmzOAsS3_6esFeaRAQNCsBVsSMuhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <565DB8C3.5080500@apache.org>
 <DC914175-1D2C-4424-A6B9-0A94FD5AAFDA@yahoo.com>
 <CALhtWkf9mYCTk9RiUm43XEoMYgOjZSrcvZhVKtC3avQzMLBhOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <etPan.565dce16.23abacc0.616b@MacPro.fritz.box> <565DDF87.4010200@apache.org>
 <565DE4D8.3080908@ungoverned.org> <565DE984.1030209@apache.org>
 <565DED43.5090504@ungoverned.org>
 <CALhtWkcJ1Y77XrMxXBi5jDdOdPuRFhLfv0YCT8uFvVt=facusQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D191291-0022-4EF3-8E65-F5E6E183D33A@ungoverned.org>
 <CALhtWkebRc-Rnk4ZgUgjSQTooc8XkQrjAcawtBexe3Yqjn4xhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@felix.apache.org

I also see no way to edit your page, and I have no idea who might be a =
confluence space administrator who could change permissions.

I was going to add to the pro-single-git-repo the point that you can =
check out exactly the parts you want using git sparse-checkout.

I don=E2=80=99t think the decision to move to git can be made =
independent of choice of a git workflow.  I=E2=80=99m strongly in favor =
of triangular workflow.

thanks
david jencks

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Dec 1, 2015 6:43 PM, "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:50, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
> =
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/~bimargulies@gmail.com/Felix+a=
nd+Git
>>>=20
>>> ?
>>=20
>> Seems like a good start, although is that editable by others?
>=20
> I don't know. Try? I don't have perms to make a page on the Felix wiki =
, if
> I get some I will move it.
>=20
>>=20
>> It seems like other technical issues were raised about the =
approaches, so
> it would be nice to see those added in there by people who have =
experience.
>>=20
>> I admit, for me, SCM is a necessary evil and not something I get too
> exited about. I haven=E2=80=99t seen anything to prefer git over svn =
or vice versa.
> They=E2=80=99re just different hammers for the same nail.
>>=20
>> Still, thinking about the options, it seems like multiple repos =
creates a
> maintenance headache to some degree. For example, line-ending handling =
is
> fairly difficult to get configured correctly in git. By having =
multiple
> repositories, then every repository would have to have this configured
> individually, since stuff like that is good to have configured =
uniformly.
> Any changes to how we want things uniformly handled would require =
manual
> propagation of configuration. Of course, this seems like it would be =
an
> issue in any proliferation of repositories (svn or git).
>>=20
>> Or perhaps there is a better way to handle such issues?
>>=20
>> -> richard
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Richard S. Hall =
<heavy@ungoverned.org>
> wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/15 13:40 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Richard S. Hall wrote
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Well, the argument to the contrary is perhaps that is makes it =
more
>>>>>> difficult for us as a community to have oversight into releases. =
It
>>>>>> almost assures us that some/many community members will never
> checkout
>>>>>> subprojects that aren't in the repository they normally work.
> Granted,
>>>>>> there is no guarantee of this now, since I can just check out =
what I
>>>>>> want anyway...but at least it is fairly easy for me to do so now =
and
> it
>>>>>> becomes more difficult if everyone spreads to their own repos.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So, in that regard, I'm more aligned with Marcel...all or nothing
> makes
>>>>>> more sense.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Hmm, ok fair point - however, the *all* is the problematic part =
where
> we
>>>>> couldn't agree on last time (one git repo vs many git repos).
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> But isn't it then incumbent on those wanting such changes to =
convince
> us one
>>>> way or the other?
>>>>=20
>>>> Personally, I'd rather just have one big git repo if we are going =
to
> switch,
>>>> if for no other reason than it seems like less overhead. However, I
> admit to
>>>> not really knowing the advantages/disadvantages.
>>>>=20
>>>> Regardless, at a minimum, perhaps someone should create a =
documented
>>>> pros/cons list for the approaches. This would at least give us a =
way
> to call
>>>> a vote where we can feel somewhat informed about the choices (i.e.,
> stay
>>>> with svn, move to one git repo, move to many git repos).
>>>>=20
>>>> Better than saying, "there is no consensus, so let's just go our
> separate
>>>> ways"...
>>>>=20
>>>> -> richard
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> We could still provide a script in the root of svn which checks =
out
> the
>>>>> moved projects from git and gives the same experience :)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Carsten
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>=20