This cutover is starting in about 2 hours. I'll send instructions here when the cutover has occurred.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:26 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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
