On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect it’s obvious already, but I’m in favor of moving to a single git > repo and stopping there unless and until we find it quite inconvenient. > > A million thanks Benson for doing the work.
I won't say 'you're welcome' until I've done some work, and I don't perceive a consensus to get started quite just yet :-) > > thanks > david jencks > >> On Oct 27, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> Am 27.10.15 um 14:52 schrieb Benson Margulies: >>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Am 27.10.15 um 14:28 schrieb Benson Margulies: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> What does it take to get a new git repo setup? Just in INFRA jira issue? >>>> >>>> Yes. There's a particular form of that JIRA that says, >>>> >>>> 'please convert our mirror to a writable repo and set SVN readonly' >>>> >>>> as opposed to >>>> >>>> 'please create a new, empty', repo. >>>> >>>> The 'all-at-once' plan uses the first option. >>>> >>> >>> Right, understood and sorry to ask again, but if we do the all at once >>> plan and want to split something into another new git repo, what does it >>> take then? >> >> For each new repo, a JIRA asking for a new repo, and we move the >> content ourselves. >> >> >>> >>> Carsten >>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Carsten >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ___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 <maili...@hupie.com> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carsten Ziegeler >>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland >>>>> cziege...@apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carsten Ziegeler >>> Adobe Research Switzerland >>> cziege...@apache.org >
