Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net
 designates 213.165.64.23 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E1370E9.8010600@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:15:37 +0200
From: Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de;
 rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: fetch-all-cws.sh (was: Building a single Hg repository)
References: <1309881194.83090.YahooMailClassic@web113505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<84901.46216.qm@web161425.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<4E13384C.8000703@gmx.net>
	<4E1366F6.5020607@gmx.net>
 <CAP-ksoh+wuZXh6Y-FK0-5WGcxK37F9ziW6oDeUqd1YPQch2BFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoh+wuZXh6Y-FK0-5WGcxK37F9ziW6oDeUqd1YPQch2BFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05.07.2011 22:04, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Moin,
>>
>> On 05.07.2011 18:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that my memory had fooled me: so if anybody can create an svn
>>> dump file, I will try to recap what we have agreed to so far and have a
>>> look into the conversion. In case anyone else is already at this, please
>>> let me know.
>> Having said that, there's a thought that makes me wonder: we have 117
>> cws with more or less unfinished work. I doubt that we will integrate
>> them all anytime soon, as integration also comprises developing the
>> merged code further until it has sufficient quality for becoming part of
>> the trunk. [Wat is "sufficient" is still undefined - we surely won't
>> continue the overdone QA approval process from the "old" OOo project,
>> but OTOH also shouldn't throw code at the repository at will.]
>>
>> Some of the 117 cws are anbandoned work, others are work in an early
>> state that most probably doesn't make sense to be continued without the
>> developers starting it.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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.

Yes, that would be my suggestion also. git would fit better here, I assume.

> 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.

I doubt that this will complicate things too much. It should be bearable.

I'm interested to read the opinions of those who favored the "get
everything into svn at once" approach.

Regards,
Mathias