incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mathias Bauer <>
Subject Re: (was: Building a single Hg repository)
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:57:38 GMT
On 06.07.2011 19:08, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 16:04, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <> wrote:
>>> Moin,
>>> On 05.07.2011 18:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>> Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that will never be used?
>>> The alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review.
> Having code in the repository is fine. It is better to have it there
> and not need it, then to need it and not have it there.
> As people have stated, these extra CWSs do not add that much more
> space. And Apache has more than enough disk space. It is not a
> concern.
>> Right.  That is why I was thinking that maybe we just create an
>> archival copy of the entire repository, including all CWS, and host
>> that as a read only Hg or git instance.  Then migrate the trunk to
>> SVN,   If there are some CWS that we know are already approved for
>> 3.4, then include those as well.
> Apache only has one repository: Subversion.
> The read-only Git instance is simply a mirror of the canonical
> Subversion repository.
>> That way, if someone does come by, months later, and decide they want
>> to complete work CWS, then they can still clone them and work on them.
>>  But then they would need to copy them into a SVN working copy, and
>> merge and commit from there.  Obviously, this does complicate things
>> for the future CWS developers.  But they are in the best position to
>> stabilize and merge their work.
> Haven't we already gone through the whole discussion about CWSs that
> may rename files, and that we want to do that rename within Hg before
> converting to Subversion?
> Let's not mess around with multiple repositories. That is just making
> it difficult for us. How is somebody supposed to investigate a CWS
> when it lives in a separate repository? That is just making it harder
> for ourselves.
Yes, you are right. The idea with moving all cws into svn and then work
from there is good enough and trying to make things better is a waste of
time that could even backfire.

So sorry for the noise, let's proceed with the hg->svn migration.


View raw message