Does anybody have any thoughts on where to publish the next NH release (or
releases after 3.2.1)? I agree with keeping the SVN repository on SF for a
while, but if we are generally moving away from SF, perhaps releases should
be hosted elsewhere. One option is NHForge - but I don't know if this is
stable/scalable enough, or if it provides download stats. GitHub doesn't
seem to provide a place for releases (?)

On 18 August 2011 05:14, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Also thinking about this from the POV  of the fact that the existing SVN
> repo URL is widely-known/posted/linked-to/etc.  With this kind of an
> approach, anyone blindly doing an svn update would get the new file and
> (hopefully!) notice it in their working copy...
>
>
> Steve Bohlen
> [email protected]
> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
>
>
>   On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Since the existing SVN repo is effectively read-only for everyone but the
>> small group of committers, my guess is that we're "safe" just ensuring that
>> the existing committers are told "hands off the SVN repo for the foreseeable
>> future" but I'm also thinking of how someone new to NH would know that the
>> SVN repo was obsolete (and this not to use it as the basis for creating
>> patches, etc.).
>>
>> What about committing a text file into the root of the SVN repo named
>> THIS_REPOSITORY_IS_OBSOLETE___DO_NOT_USE___READ_ME_FOR_DETAILS.txt that
>> explains the location of the new github repo so that there's at least some
>> way of new folks not making the mistake of working with this repo any
>> longer?
>>
>>
>> Steve Bohlen
>> [email protected]
>> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
>> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
>>
>>
>>   On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I think that there are probably several housekeeping issues that still
>>> > remain to be addressed around this process:
>>> >
>>> > We need to decide what to do about the disposition of the existing SVN
>>> repo
>>> > (shut it down completely, annotate its content as SUPERSEDED and direct
>>> ppl
>>> > to the git repo via a readme note in it, etc., etc.).  What are
>>> people's
>>> > ideas about how best to handle this?  Is it the case at this point that
>>> the
>>> > entire contents of the SVN repo are in git (e.g., there have been no
>>> > subsequent commits to the SVN repo since the import to git)?
>>>
>>> There have been no new commits and all branches and tags have been
>>> imported to the best of my knowledge.  6004 was the last SVN commit
>>> included.  There have been a couple commits on the GIT repository
>>> after the import.
>>>
>>> I believe we should start directing people to the new repository, and
>>> if possible change the existing one to read-only.  I don't think we
>>> should delete it until more time has passed.
>>>
>>> We should decide on our suggested workflow for issues / pull requests
>>> / feature branches.  The castle project folks might be able to provide
>>> some insight here, since they went though a similar situation.
>>>
>>> > We need to decide how to handle the existing SVN-based patches that
>>> have
>>> > been attached to still-open JIRA issues.  Properly applying these to
>>> TRUNK
>>> > as the contents of the SVN and git repos diverge over time is probably
>>> going
>>> > to be a non-trivial process (unless someone has some pearls of wisdom
>>> to
>>> > share re: tricks for handling this simply...I've never actually tried
>>> to
>>> > apply an SVN patch to a non-SVN-controlled set of files...is this even
>>> > possible???)
>>>
>>> The SVN patches are almost just unified diffs.  These can be applied
>>> without much effort using generic patch tools.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/659467/how-to-apply-svn-diff-to-git
>>>
>>> The patches in JIRA tend to be small or require significant
>>> modification anyways, so I don't think this will be a major issue in
>>> practice.
>>>
>>>         Patrick Earl
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to