On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> I just cloned and checked out some of the tags and branches from cxf-test. I > think it looks pretty good now. > Should we do an official vote about the switch or can we already consider > this discussion a consensus? Lazy consensus is OK. I certainly haven’t seen any objections. If anyone has concerns, please speak up. > The other question is when to switch. I am in no hurry to do so. From my side > after the 3.0.0-m2 sounds like a good date. It there anything I can help > with? Perhaps coordinate with infra or do you want to do this Dan? After M2, I’ll log an INFRA ticket and work with Jukka directly. It’s a bit more involved as we don’t want the current mirror repo to be used so it will involve making the SVN repo read-only, running the commands to squash the incubator stuff (takes a couple hours), putting that new repo in place, interacting with github to wipe out the old mirror there and restart, etc… Jukka helped me figure out the commands for the squashing and such and would likely be the one handling most of this anyway. Note that the flip WILL require the repo to go read-only for some period of time before we have the git repo fully setup. Thus, we may be stuck for a day or two. Dan > > Christian > > > On 24.01.2014 15:35, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Thorsten Höger <li...@hoegernet.de> wrote: >> >>> Some comments after playing around with the test repo: >>> >>> - I can only see branches for 2.5.x, 2.6.x and 2.7.x. but 2.4 and before >>> are missing >> Since we are not maintaining those versions anymore, there is no point in >> keeping the branches around. Really, the 2.5.x should go as well. If we >> ever do need to “fix” anything, we can create branches off the appropriate >> tag. >> , >>> - there are no tags for released versions >> That was my fault. Forgot to add “—tags” to the git push. Keep forgetting >> that the push/pull doesn’t do the tags as well. :-( >> >> I just pushed them. 70 release tags. Wow. :-) >> >>> - maybe trunk should be renamed to master (git-style) >> Yea. When we go “live”, we’d definitely do that. This is just an >> experiment at this point to make sure we can create a new git repo that is a >> bit better than the pure svn dump version we’ve been using. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> >>> Am 23.01.2014 19:05, schrieb Daniel Kulp: >>>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2) I’d LIKE to rebuild the git repo and possibly remove all the >>>>> /incubator revisions and tags. Kind of “start” at the graduation. Maybe >>>>> a bit before at the 2.0-incubator release. Or at least all the “lib” >>>>> dirs out of them. That would chop about 100MB out of the .git directory >>>>> making it a LOT smaller. The original codebase kept .jar files in the >>>>> repo which sucks with git. I’m really not sure how much of the history >>>>> and tags from 2005/2006 is at all important anymore so this is likely not >>>>> a big deal. Plus, the history is still in SVN if we really need it. >>>> I played with this a little bit last night. If I use the commit where we >>>> did the “maven release:prepare” for 2.1 (first major release out of the >>>> incubator) as the base for a graft point and removed the 2.0.x tags and >>>> branches (they’ll still exist in SVN if we ever need them) and the >>>> “celtix” tag from prior to doing the changes from celtix -> CXF, and then >>>> do a: >>>> >>>> git filter-branch --prune-empty --tag-name-filter cat -- --all >>>> >>>> (takes a couple hours to run) >>>> >>>> to clean up the branches and remove all the “empty commits” which are >>>> created when the svn properties are updated for the merges and such, the >>>> “.git” dir drops from about 150MB down to 51MB. Also, the “git log >>>> 2.7.x-fixes” looks better without all the “blocked XYX” commits and such. >>>> If created a test repo at my github account: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/dkulp/cxf-test >>>> >>>> if you want to clone it and take a look at the various branches and tags >>>> and such. >>>> >>>> If we decide to move to git (which I don’t see any objections so far), I >>>> would propose that we use that process as the starting point for the >>>> official git repo instead of taking the full svn dump version we have >>>> right now on the mirror. It’s a bit smaller and cleaner. >>>> >>>> The downside is for the files that have existed since 2.1, a “git blame” >>>> and log and such will only go back to 2.1. Blame will list me as the >>>> person for any lines that have existed since 2.1 (since I did the >>>> “release:prepare” for 2.1 and all the commits prior to that are squashed >>>> up into there). We could go back a little further than 2.1 if we feel >>>> it’s overly important. Or, we could even move up to 2.2 or later if we >>>> feel it’s not at all important. :-) >>>> >>>> > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
