I'd like to keep all history, so we don't lose anything along the way. You never know when you might need to go look back at something for comparison. Plus since SVN atomically increments version numbers across trunk, branches and tags collectively, I don't think you can select just one or the other and still retain all revisions.
I personally don't think its a big deal just to have a 1:1 move and keep everything the way it is - just my opinion. After 0.9.0 final is released and we make the switch to org.apache.jsecurity.*, I think it would be self-evident that if you saw something that didn't match that package structure, that it is code that came in before the import. And you would only see that distinction in tags and branches. I just don't think that many people would notice that, and if they did, they'd probably be a developer of the project who was specifically looking for an old branch to begin with. But this may all be a moot point. The 'svnsync' command (outlined in the jira issue), requires the very first operation to be revision 0. The import must start on revision 1. If we were to create an import directory in the repository, that modification would bump up the revision to 1, and the actual code import wouldn't be able to start on revision 1. I don't think SVN sync allows this - it is a tool for an exact copy only as far as I know. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ahh, ok. My idea was to drop the imported branches and tags and just keep > trunk. We would tag it as "import". Then re-org everything inside trunk > with the goal of making a 1.0 release that would be acceptable to the > Incubator. > > I guess I just assumed that the history in trunk would be good enough. If > someone wanted to look at the old branches and tags it would be simple > enough to get copies of them using the svn update command. > > Just a tought. > > Regards, > Alan > > > > On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > All the code being imported has the org.jsecurity package name, including >> the trunk, tags, and branches, I think it would be less confusing to put >> trunk, tags, and branches under a new top level directory called import. >> >> The new top level trunk, tags, and branches would then be where we migrate >> the imports/trunk to while changing package names (and licenses as >> required). >> >> It's not clear to me that we should have >> incubator/jsecurity/tags/0.90-beta2 in the Apache repo. I'd much prefer to >> see incubator/jsecurity/import/tags/0.90-beta2. >> >> My thoughts on this process are (obviously) evolving. I just want to make >> it clear to anyone browsing the Apache repository that there is legacy code >> being imported and there is code that will become the Apache distribution. >> Just throwing out ideas to make it less opaque. >> >> Craig >> >> On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >> >> Actually I don't think that is possible - the existing repo already has >>> 'trunk', 'branches' and 'tags' that need to be preserved in the same >>> location. >>> >>> To achieve what you're talking about, I was hoping we could just create >>> an >>> 'import' branch immediately after the migration and then start using the >>> trunk after that point as desired. >>> >>> Would that be acceptable? >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >wrote: >>> >>> Is it too late to suggest that the top level directory for the imported >>>> code be "import" and not "trunk"? Using the import directory would allow >>>> development to continue (in import) and put all of the future Apache >>>> deliverables into trunk. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok, I'll let the infrastructure folks know they can blast away the >>>> >>>>> existing >>>>> one when performing the load. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Les >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Alan D. Cabrera < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Crickey, you may be right. It's simple enough to recreate those few >>>>> >>>>>> files. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> ALan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to do it today or tomorrow. Sunday at the latest for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just out of curiosity - I see the new SVN is being used. Won't that >>>>>>> cause >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> conflict for an svnadmin load of the migrated repo? I mean, I've >>>>>>> never >>>>>>> done >>>>>>> an svnadmin load on anything other than a fresh repository - anyone >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> this is possible? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera < >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Les, have you been able to make your SVN dump yet? When can we >>>>>>> expect >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Alan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Craig L Russell >>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo >>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>>> >>>> >>>> >> Craig L Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >
