I personally believe that this is the right way to go, so I'm definitely +1 on such proposal.
Jarcec On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 09:02:27PM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote: > The key point here is to have documentation evolve along with source code. > > Given git is not going to be supported by the CMS, we may try the way Jarcec > used in Sqoop: get documentation into git, evolve, and then push back to SVN > for publish. > > Regards, > > -- Jianbin > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Brock Noland wrote: > > So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the > documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the > release? > > Brock > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_. > > Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution. For > example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for > other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin. > Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control. > > IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases. So I don't see why > we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases. > > Regards, > > -- Jianbin > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote: > > Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate > documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the > versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing > documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is > already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will > prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases. > > On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: > The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason > behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is > heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know). > > On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the > repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache > Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept > up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we > always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). > But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this > topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free > to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion. > > Jarcec > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote: > Why not make the site folder as part of the repository? The documentation > should be part of the release. > > Thanks, > > Jianbin > > On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, > otherwise we cannot update the website. > > On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote: > Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git > ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead. > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Guys, > Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing > commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check > the repository before allowing infra to continue. > > You can clone the repository using following command: > > git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git > > Jarcec > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: > This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed > this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@. > > Jarcec > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote: > Yes good point. > > On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me. > > Cheers, > Chris > > On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote: > > The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be > MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last > commit as being me on 5/22? > > On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: > Hi Mrunit PMC, > it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. > Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You > can get the repository by running following command: > > git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git > > We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, > however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well > before giving Infra green to proceed. > > Here is stuff that I've checked: > > * Clone is working > * Tags seems to be correct > * Branches seems to be correct > * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct > * "trunk" is compilable > > Jarcec > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > -- > Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
