On 1/20/2021 12:54, Eric wrote: > Hi, > > On 19/01/2021 13:13, edgar.sol...@web.de wrote: >> On 1/19/2021 9:19, Michaud Michael wrote: >>> Hi Jumpers >>> >>> Thanks to Eric's guide, I could initialize openjump project on gitub >>> (openjump-gis/openjump) and convert it to jts 1.18. >>> >>> It is not perfect (I could not convert 1.5 post_release >>> <https://sourceforge.net/p/jump-pilot/code/HEAD/tree/core/tags/1.5%20post_release> >>> tag because of the whitespace in the name :-(), but all in all, I think it >>> is OK. >> tag '1.5 post_release' seems to be there with a %20, or am i missing >> something? >> >>> Please, have a look and let me know if you think so. >> commit history seem to be identical to sf.net svn, though we're missing >> 2years because of an improper svn mov from /trunk/openjump to /trunk/core . >> just for completeness sake we should probably transfer this as into a >> history branch if someone wants to research changes to a specific source >> file. > Would you consider creating a specific repository for these 2 years rather > than a branch? It would probably reduce the size of the main repository, > which is already quite large (~750MB). > See these considerations: > https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-large-files/what-is-my-disk-quota#file-and-repository-size-limitations
sounds perfectly reasonable. these 2 missing years are meant as an archive for researching purposes only anyways. > As the OJ repository will only come larger over time, it could slow the > fetching process. > > The creation of a specific repository could probably be considered as well to > store the former SVN "branches", i.e. oj_stable_1_2 (updated 14 years ago by > Stefan Steiniger), 1.2 (updated 14 years ago by Stefan Steiniger), paustin > (updated 14 years ago by Paul Austin), 1.3 (updated 12 years ago by Stefan > Steiniger), sstein@1863 (updated 11 years ago by Larry Becker) and > stable%201.5 (updated 9 years ago by Michael Michaud). All the tags would > stay, including the ones in link with the 1.2 and 1.3 versions listed in > branches (were these branches some pre-release tests?). currently we dropped those. looking like private devel/test branches to me which can be discarded. >>> I could compile but I still have a problem to run maven. >>> >>> I did not migrate plugins at all (not sure how we must proceed yet, some >>> options must be discussed) >> sure, one step after the other. no need to hurry things. generally i'd be in >> favour of one branch per plugin, but might be swayed otherwise. > > Ede, do you mean one repository per plugin rather than one branch? indeed. no reason to keep all plugins in one plugin repo. > If in the future, the plan is to create/add a plugin manager, there is, since actually always ;) >the option to create a repository per plugin could facilitate their >maintenance, especially if the OJ distribution can be used as a Maven >dependency for these plugins. totally >>> There are probably plenty of things to improve and fix before we start >>> again to add new code. >>> >>> I'll try to list some more precise points to discuss in a future mail. >> ok, looking forward to it. ..ede > > Eric thanks!.. ede _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
