As a volunteer of record, I have a preference at this point for flipping the entire repo. It's not zero work; all the <scm/> elements have to be edited, and release plugin config adjusted, for the maven plugins. But that's very straightforward. Once we get this much done, we can then start to move things to their own repo.
___However___, I'm willing to take up any other work plan that the group agrees upon. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Ferry Huberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 27/10/15 13:45, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> >> Looking at this thread, there seems to be no one really against moving >> to git. >> >> When it comes to moving, we have three options: >> >> a) create a single git repo > > > I'd start here. > It's the simplest and lowest risk thing to do, doesn't break your parent-pom > hierarchy, etc. > > It merely switches the VCS. > > And then work from there, try out different solutions for your parent-pom > hierarchy, releasing, etc > > You can always split out parts of the tree later while preserving history. > Git doesn't mind and has great tooling to do that. > > >> b) create git repos by functional modules >> c) create a git repo for every artifact >> >> Depending on which variant we pick, the more work it is to get >> everything moved. Therefore apart from deciding for the option it >> depends on a volunteer to drive this thing. >> >> I'm unsure on how we come to a decision on the option. I think all >> arguments are on the plate and there is little use in reiterating these >> in slightly different fashions. >> >> The thing I don't know is, how much effort it requires to >> request/create/setup another git repo, e.g. if we start with a) and >> there is a desire to create a separate repo for something. (I know the >> git commands to move a subtree to a different repo, therefore I'm just >> asking about the effort on the infra side) >> >> Regards >> Carsten >> > > -- > Ferry Huberts
