I tried to clarify the plan some. More feedback/input is welcome! On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:02 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Ok it sounds like Thursday is our day. I'm planning on 5pm UTC >> https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=4460243,100,3078610&h=4460243&date=2019-2-28&sln=12-13 >> >> At that time a few things will happen: >> * I'll perform the cutover, removing pulp/pulp:master, and making >> pulp/pulp:2-master the primary branch (nothing changes for pulp2) >> * I'll send a note to pulp-dev immediately w/ some basic instructions on >> how to port your repos. (basically delete, fork, fresh clone) >> * I'll be closing the Pulp3 PRs on pulp/pulp and opening them on >> pulp/pulpcore >> * I will cutover only over the Pulp3 tags >> * applying Travis updates to use the new repo on other various repos that >> rely on source checkouts of pulp/pulp (these will be prepped ahead of time) >> >> I'll be preparing that morning, so feel free to ask any questions on IRC >> or email ahead of time. >> > > How are you doing this? Are you planning on renaming pulp/pulp to > pulp/pulpcore, then creating a new pulp/pulp repo with the old stuff? If > you're doing that, how do you plan to migrate PRs across? I didn't think > GitHub supported that. If you're doing the inverse (creating a new > pulp/pulpcore instead), then how will the pulp 3 PRs move? > I put some details on how this will happen in a written out plan on the ticket here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#the-plan I'll move the few PRs manually following these steps ( https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#Moving-PRs ). I verified github allows me to open those new PRs. > > What I would actually suggest is archiving the existing pulp/pulp repo, > and creating two new ones: pulp/pulpcore (for Pulp 3), and pulp/pulp-legacy > (for pulp 2). This makes it a clean break for both, and makes it a lot less > confusing to understand what happened and how people should target. This > also has the advantage of not requiring you to do weird things to the Git > repo. > The "two totally new repos" plan would be fine with me, but one of the design goals during this change is that existing pulp2 development and pulp2 build/test has no disruption. This is what is driving the plan to move the pulp3 to a new repo and leave the existing one unaffected. Also the git stuff I think of as kind of normal stuff in that I'm moving moving refs and tags between two remotes. Either way (two new repos or one) everyone would fixup their repos by re-forking and re-cloning, I wrote that out that process some here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#Fixing-forks-and-checkouts > > Everyone also gets to endure the pain at once too, which makes things a > lot simpler. > I believe separating the pain makes it more manageable because only those involved with pulp3 are involved with this change. Also we're not sure will become of the pulp/pulp repo over time in terms of its name. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
