On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Russell Bryant <russ...@russellbryant.net> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Jordan <mjor...@digium.com> wrote: >>
<snip> >> >> There's a large amount of intervening work that has to be done, and >> some questions that still need to be answered. In no particular order: >> >> (1) In test runs of building the Asterisk repo, I've successfully >> managed to pull in the team repos that are still 'active'. Since >> Gerrit acts as the canonical Git repo, we can set it up so that direct >> pushes to team branches are allowed and don't require a code review - >> although code reviews can be done if someone desires it. For those who >> use team branches a lot, does this sound acceptable? > > > What's the benefit of trying to keep team branches at all vs. just letting > people use their own git trees hosted on one of the many personal git > hosting options (github or whatever) ? > > If it's about several people collaborating on a branch, that makes sense to > me to do as a feature branch in gerrit, but it seems like the exception, not > the rule. > I think the primary benefit is having a place for collaborators to put stuff. If anything - since we won't have to worry about SSL access to SVN - the move to Gerrit will make that *must* easier for people. The secondary benefit is having a location for people who have signed a CLA to push code, and implicit in that push, that they've licensed that code back to the Asterisk project. <snip> > > (b) sounds the least painful overall to me. People consuming releases > shouldn't notice a difference, right? Yeah, I think I'd rather just bite the bullet and get the repo set up "right" with as few weird things lingering around as possible. The only potential issue is requiring libxml2 (as we didn't pull in the bundled mxml) - but we may as well deal with the fallout now. >> (4) Asterisk records the SVN revision in each file using the special >> keyword "$Revision:". This is then registered in a linked list for >> retrieval by the CLI/AMI. Unfortunately, Git doesn't support this >> concept, as adding data into a file after commit would change the >> checksum . It does allow doing this on checkout via the $Id$ keyword, >> which may be an acceptable workaround. > > > That whole thing seems questionably useful, anyway. Just removing it is > another option. True. I'm not sure how much value people get from knowing the SVN revision of a file... much less a checksum. -- Matthew Jordan Digium, Inc. | Director of Technology 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
