struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Svn to Git migration
Date Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:43:37 GMT
The only problem is that links to the old Struts source are broken. The
"attic" is traditionally been reserved for dead projects. We're not in that
situation. All we need is a read-only lock.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlenart@apache.org>wrote:

> I still don't get it - what is the problem with moving the source to
> attic? It isn't valid source code any more - what is valid are the
> tags (/struts2/tags/STRUTS_2_3_8) but I doubt that anybody uses them
> (except us).
>
> Wicket - very good example, I didn't know it isn't valid source code
> anymore (I have been checking it few times how they solved issues with
> SvnPubSub - I was waisting my time). There should be huge banner -
> MOVED-TO-GIT-DONT-USE-THIS-SOURCE!
>
> So, I opt to leave the source in attic and react if users start
> complaining about that.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
>
> 2014/1/15 Rene Gielen <rene.gielen@gmail.com>:
> > I wonder what the downside is to just put svn subtrees in question into
> > read only mode compared to moving them to attic. As for placing a
> > prominent notice, such as MOVED-TO-GIT-README.txt, it would be useful to
> > our users in either case.
> >
> > Having a look at wicket, they just left svn at a point in time, keeping
> > everything in place (presumably read-only):
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/
> > While I would wish to find a prominent README here as described above, a
> > see a case for not breaking things that are not in our hand. In the
> > early days of Weld / CDI e.g., I desperately needed trunk level builds
> > that were not published yet. For that reason I did a
> > checkout-and-build-dependency step in the maven bootstrap phase of my
> > build. While this was clearly violating the reproducible build
> > principle, I could live with this trade-off since the features I needed
> > were additions unlikely to go away. To some extent reproducibility may
> > be seen as that if you would checkout some project published a few years
> > ago, it would build without some early failures before javac even kicks
> > in. I know this is a corner case, but it would suffer from repo contents
> > (from which a checkout would be done during my build) being moved away.
> >
> > Regarding Apache policies, there are a few around that might help
> > finding a decision:
> > - Apache requires us to run on our own infrastructure for a single
> > reason: provide resources that will last for ages at the same place.
> > That is why we would not want to do canonical hosting of projects
> > externally, such as on GitHub - maybe it shuts down tomorrow? Unlikely,
> > yes. On the other hand, we have seen such things happen: tr.im URL
> > shortener was popular by it's time, but then money ran out. Each mailing
> > list posting containing tr.im URL you will look up in archive render
> > useless due to the URLs cannot be resolved any more. That's why Apache
> > even promotes their own URL shortener, http://s.apache.org.
> > - Dead projects, that is projects with dead communities, go to the Attic
> > meta project, including move of svn resources. While this has more to do
> > with having a meta-PMC for keeping oversight even if the owning PMC is
> > dead, it indeed involves moving of svn resources - AFAIK the only
> > process where such move happens as a part of an Apache policy. So moving
> > something to something called "attic" makes me shout out "I'm not dead
> > yet!" spontaneously :)
> >
> > So far, I would really tend to go into read-only mode with notices
> > placed in svn rather than to move things away. If there are good
> > arguments for the move I have missed so far, I would of course happily
> > switch my position on that topic.
> >
> > Just my 0.02$
> > - René
> >
> > Am 15.01.14 20:54, schrieb Lukasz Lenart:
> >> 2014/1/15 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>:
> >>> The published POMs should all have a link to the SCM URL. We shouldn't
> move
> >>> to the attic so those links can stay valid.
> >>
> >> Ok, what is wrong if they become invalid? Maybe people start thinking
> >> about migration :-)
> >>
> >>> And what do you mean "cut the wire"? Is that an Apache directive to
> stop
> >>> people from going to svn?
> >>
> >> I don't know how it is in English - when child is born, connection
> >> with mother is cut :-) The same here, at some point we must strictly
> >> say - sorry guys!
> >>
> >> It was mentioned as a good practise from other projects which migrated
> to Git.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Paul

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message