+1 for Josh just contacting infra to make this happen
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 12, 2013 4:21 PM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Alright, I think I covered all of the content that's needed. > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~elserj/git/git.html > > > > > > Disclaimer, I actually got Christopher to say "it's kind of long...". > Yes, > > > this was intended. I'd rather be (painfully) explicit front and lift > out a > > > TL;DR version from the master document. > > > > I did read the whole thing. I would like to see a place for the > > scenarios I contributed, but other than that, I think it's a > > sufficient plan for transition. > > Are you planning to update it yourself or would you like me to? If you'd > like me to, please refresh my mind on the specifics :) > > > > > _Please_ give feedback now as to what is still unclear about after > reading > > > the document. I'd hate to have wasted all of this time writing this to > just > > > change our minds again in the near future > > > > One thing mentioned is the release instructions (how to create/stage a > > release). I'm not sure things will work exactly the same as for svn, > > but I hope they'll be very close (it might require an extra 'git push' > > or something, after the normal steps expressed in assemble/build.sh). > > I'd have to do some more experimenting with git and the > > maven-release-plugin, after which I could write something up. I can do > > this after the transition, though, and after I'm sure myself how to do > > it smoothly. I don't think this should be a blocker, though. > > > > > Also, please look for text in _emphasis_ as these are things which I do > not > > > believe were decided upon as a group. Copied here for your ease: > > > > > > 1. Need to ensure that deleting remote branches is not an issue. > History is > > > still intact so this should not grind against ASF policy. > > > > IMO, this is probably the most important thing remaining to find out, > > since the described workflow that seems to have consensus assumes > > this. > > Yay for your response from #infra. Thanks for taking the time to ask. I'll > remove those caveats from the doc. > > > > > 2. Do we have a nice write-up of the release policies? > > > > > > And, the last thing: > > > > > > Is everyone ok with the default branch when cloning the repository > being > > > latest unstable branch (synonymous with what "trunk" is now)? If so, is > > > everyone ok with naming it `master`? This is what my vote is towards. > > > > +1, +1 > > I'll update this section of the doc tonight. > > > > > Once we get these questions answered and the process reviewed, I > believe > > > we're ready to move forward with the INFRA ticket. > > > > +1 > > Does anyone feel we need to call a vote on this plan? I feel lazy consensus > is good enough given our previous poll on wanting to move to git in the > first place. > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >
