Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Andy Clement]

Indeed I know it would be easy if pure GitHub, but it is an eclipse project
with connections to eclipse and the security permissions etc are managed on
the eclipse side by scripts syncing eclipse accounts with Github settings.
I don't know how they would handle the change. Maybe the leftover
forwarding thing would mean things 'just work' but my experiences over the
last few weeks make me skeptical.

cheers,
Andy

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:59, Lars Grefer  wrote:

> Renaming a repository at GitHub should™ be no problem.
>
> If a repository is renamed using the GitHub UI, all links pointing at the
> old name will be forwarded to the new name/location.
>
> Lars
>
> Am 2020-08-14 23:36, schrieb Andy Clement:
>
> That reason would be lost in the mists of time. There is the related
> aspectj-shadows project that feeds into this one that is called
> org.aspectj.shadows too, but that is still a mirror rather than real repo
> at github. I'm open to a rename, depending on the pain and suffering it
> will cause. Things already feel a thousand times better than before though.
> (Thanks Lars for all the PRs !).
>
> Andy
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:52, Lars Grefer  wrote:
>
>> One small question about that: Why is the repository named "org.aspectj"
>> and not just "aspectj"?
>> The latter would produce nicer and more concise names and URLs.
>>
>> Greetings
>>   Lars Grefer
>>
>>
>> Am 2020-07-31 17:23, schrieb Andy Clement:
>>
>> Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This
>> meant you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to
>> bugzilla), also any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle
>> because project committers couldn't process them easily.
>>
>> Today, the copy of aspectj at https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should
>> be a full proper, Github repo! Woohoo!  The issues tab is alive and PRs
>> should work properly.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>> ___
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>
>>
>> ___
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Lars Grefer]

Renaming a repository at GitHub should(tm) be no problem. 

If a repository is renamed using the GitHub UI, all links pointing at
the old name will be forwarded to the new name/location. 

Lars

Am 2020-08-14 23:36, schrieb Andy Clement:

> That reason would be lost in the mists of time. There is the related 
> aspectj-shadows project that feeds into this one that is called 
> org.aspectj.shadows too, but that is still a mirror rather than real repo at 
> github. I'm open to a rename, depending on the pain and suffering it will 
> cause. Things already feel a thousand times better than before though. 
> (Thanks Lars for all the PRs !).
> 
> Andy 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:52, Lars Grefer  wrote: 
> 
> One small question about that: Why is the repository named "org.aspectj" and 
> not just "aspectj"?
> The latter would produce nicer and more concise names and URLs. 
> 
> Greetings
> Lars Grefer 
> 
> Am 2020-07-31 17:23, schrieb Andy Clement: 
> 
> Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This meant 
> you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla), also 
> any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because project 
> committers couldn't process them easily. 
> 
> Today, the copy of aspectj at https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should 
> be a full proper, Github repo! Woohoo!  The issues tab is alive and PRs 
> should work properly. 
> 
> cheers, 
> Andy 
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users 
> 
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Lars Grefer]

One small question about that: Why is the repository named "org.aspectj"
and not just "aspectj"?
The latter would produce nicer and more concise names and URLs. 

Greetings
  Lars Grefer 

Am 2020-07-31 17:23, schrieb Andy Clement:

> Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This meant 
> you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla), also 
> any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because project 
> committers couldn't process them easily. 
> 
> Today, the copy of aspectj at https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should 
> be a full proper, Github repo! Woohoo!  The issues tab is alive and PRs 
> should work properly. 
> 
> cheers, 
> Andy 
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Andy Clement]

That reason would be lost in the mists of time. There is the related
aspectj-shadows project that feeds into this one that is called
org.aspectj.shadows too, but that is still a mirror rather than real repo
at github. I'm open to a rename, depending on the pain and suffering it
will cause. Things already feel a thousand times better than before though.
(Thanks Lars for all the PRs !).

Andy

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:52, Lars Grefer  wrote:

> One small question about that: Why is the repository named "org.aspectj"
> and not just "aspectj"?
> The latter would produce nicer and more concise names and URLs.
>
> Greetings
>   Lars Grefer
>
>
> Am 2020-07-31 17:23, schrieb Andy Clement:
>
> Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This meant
> you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla), also
> any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because project
> committers couldn't process them easily.
>
> Today, the copy of aspectj at https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should
> be a full proper, Github repo! Woohoo!  The issues tab is alive and PRs
> should work properly.
>
> cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Timothy Spear]

I would not migrate bugzilla. The few times I went in there to find stuff;
I found it basically useless. General net searches or searching the mailing
list is much more effective.

If you want to migrate the issues; I am willing to put in a little time
figuring out how to do so. A quick search shows that we can likely migrate
the core text data, but it will be very difficult to migrate any
attachments.

Tim

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:15 PM Andy Clement 
wrote:

> I don't plan on ignoring bugzilla in the near term, so I'll be keeping an
> eye on both. I just feel migrating the 756 open issues, most of which will
> never be addressed, creates an immediate mess in the project. I don't have
> the cycles to review all 756 to see which subset might be fixed, or which
> are good for first timers. Whereas the github project is almost a clean
> slate at the moment and maybe can be kept on top of now in that state.
>
> It took me an extra week just now to get commit rights to the repository,
> bugzilla migration feels like a can of worms I don't want to get into right
> now (maybe in the future, who knows). Wherever users raise issues, I will
> be taking a look.
>
> In some good news, I've already processed a couple of PRs against the
> github project, so that is working now and someone kindly added the github
> action support so builds are now happening! Exciting
> https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj/actions?query=workflow%3A%22Java+CI+with+Maven%22
>
> cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 21:02, Alexander Kriegisch 
> wrote:
>
>> Talk is cheap, I am aware of that. So if I request Bugzilla issues to be
>> migrated to GitHub issues and on top of that also request redirection, I
>> know I am not the guy who has to do all the work. My argument here is
>> that old issues are still a valuable source of information, even closed
>> ones. IMO they are just as important as documentation, especially
>> because documentation has not been updated for so long and everything
>> about new features or bugfixes in AspectJ is only documented as release
>> notes pointing to lists of issues.
>>
>> It looks like others have done such migrations before, here are a few
>> links, [1] pointing to [2] and also mentioning re-using information
>> created during the migration in order to implement redirection. [2] also
>> mentions a dry-run option and links to some derivative tools based in
>> itself. Maybe something there could be useful.
>>
>> The Python script under [3] looks more simplistic, I do not know if it
>> would be adequate.
>>
>> There are also some answers under [4], maybe one of them could be
>> helpful.
>>
>> [1] https://www.theozimmermann.net/2017/10/bugzilla-to-github/
>> [2] https://github.com/berestovskyy/bugzilla2github
>> [3]
>> https://github.com/wilzbach/bugzilla-migration/blob/master/bugzilla2github.py
>> [4] https://stackoverflow.com/q/7281304/1082681
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Kriegisch
>> https://scrum-master.de
>>
>>
>> Andy Clement schrieb am 02.08.2020 07:09 (GMT +07:00):
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't dive into the details with the webmaster (yet) - he simply
>> > offered archiving our bugzilla or continuing to use bugzilla - no
>> > migration mentioned but I wouldn't want a full migration anyway, there
>> is
>> > too much old irrelevant stuff in there. I haven't spoken to him about
>> > possible forwarding options either. If I could coordinate 'open
>> bugzillas
>> > updated in the last 1-2 years' or something like that for a migration,
>> I'd
>> > possibly try that.
>> >
>> > My current plan (obviously the laziest option) is just to continue with
>> > both and gradually folks will stop using bugzilla, it doesn't get a ton
>> of
>> > traffic anyway. Github issues are the future from my point of view. The
>> > README on the project should indicate that and anywhere else I can
>> mention
>> > it should also get updated to indicate that.
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 20:17, Alexander Kriegisch
>> > mailto:alexan...@kriegisch.name>
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is good news indeed, Andy. Thank you and everyone involved for
>> >> this.
>> >>
>> >> For now there are no existing issues there, so I would like to know if
>> >> in the future there will be two issue tracking systems or if there is
>> >> any plan to migrate the Bugzilla issues to GitHub too. Or maybe
>> Bugzilla
>> >> will stay the leading system? Bugzilla contains lots of historical, but
>> >> still relevant information, release notes, mailing list discussions and
>> >> StackOverflow comments/answers are pointing there etc. But it is ugly,
>> >> difficult to use, there is no text formatting etc. So migrating
>> >> everything to GitHub in a batch process and automatically adding links
>> >> (even if only as comments) from the Bugzilla issue to the corresponding
>> >> GitHub issue would be a good thing to do. Automatic redirection would
>> be
>> >> even better, but probably difficult technically. In any case Bugzilla
>> >> cou

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Andy Clement]

I don't plan on ignoring bugzilla in the near term, so I'll be keeping an
eye on both. I just feel migrating the 756 open issues, most of which will
never be addressed, creates an immediate mess in the project. I don't have
the cycles to review all 756 to see which subset might be fixed, or which
are good for first timers. Whereas the github project is almost a clean
slate at the moment and maybe can be kept on top of now in that state.

It took me an extra week just now to get commit rights to the repository,
bugzilla migration feels like a can of worms I don't want to get into right
now (maybe in the future, who knows). Wherever users raise issues, I will
be taking a look.

In some good news, I've already processed a couple of PRs against the
github project, so that is working now and someone kindly added the github
action support so builds are now happening! Exciting
https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj/actions?query=workflow%3A%22Java+CI+with+Maven%22

cheers,
Andy

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 21:02, Alexander Kriegisch 
wrote:

> Talk is cheap, I am aware of that. So if I request Bugzilla issues to be
> migrated to GitHub issues and on top of that also request redirection, I
> know I am not the guy who has to do all the work. My argument here is
> that old issues are still a valuable source of information, even closed
> ones. IMO they are just as important as documentation, especially
> because documentation has not been updated for so long and everything
> about new features or bugfixes in AspectJ is only documented as release
> notes pointing to lists of issues.
>
> It looks like others have done such migrations before, here are a few
> links, [1] pointing to [2] and also mentioning re-using information
> created during the migration in order to implement redirection. [2] also
> mentions a dry-run option and links to some derivative tools based in
> itself. Maybe something there could be useful.
>
> The Python script under [3] looks more simplistic, I do not know if it
> would be adequate.
>
> There are also some answers under [4], maybe one of them could be
> helpful.
>
> [1] https://www.theozimmermann.net/2017/10/bugzilla-to-github/
> [2] https://github.com/berestovskyy/bugzilla2github
> [3]
> https://github.com/wilzbach/bugzilla-migration/blob/master/bugzilla2github.py
> [4] https://stackoverflow.com/q/7281304/1082681
>
> --
> Alexander Kriegisch
> https://scrum-master.de
>
>
> Andy Clement schrieb am 02.08.2020 07:09 (GMT +07:00):
> >
> >
> > I didn't dive into the details with the webmaster (yet) - he simply
> > offered archiving our bugzilla or continuing to use bugzilla - no
> > migration mentioned but I wouldn't want a full migration anyway, there is
> > too much old irrelevant stuff in there. I haven't spoken to him about
> > possible forwarding options either. If I could coordinate 'open bugzillas
> > updated in the last 1-2 years' or something like that for a migration,
> I'd
> > possibly try that.
> >
> > My current plan (obviously the laziest option) is just to continue with
> > both and gradually folks will stop using bugzilla, it doesn't get a ton
> of
> > traffic anyway. Github issues are the future from my point of view. The
> > README on the project should indicate that and anywhere else I can
> mention
> > it should also get updated to indicate that.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 20:17, Alexander Kriegisch
> > mailto:alexan...@kriegisch.name>
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> This is good news indeed, Andy. Thank you and everyone involved for
> >> this.
> >>
> >> For now there are no existing issues there, so I would like to know if
> >> in the future there will be two issue tracking systems or if there is
> >> any plan to migrate the Bugzilla issues to GitHub too. Or maybe Bugzilla
> >> will stay the leading system? Bugzilla contains lots of historical, but
> >> still relevant information, release notes, mailing list discussions and
> >> StackOverflow comments/answers are pointing there etc. But it is ugly,
> >> difficult to use, there is no text formatting etc. So migrating
> >> everything to GitHub in a batch process and automatically adding links
> >> (even if only as comments) from the Bugzilla issue to the corresponding
> >> GitHub issue would be a good thing to do. Automatic redirection would be
> >> even better, but probably difficult technically. In any case Bugzilla
> >> could stay active in a read-only mode.
> >>
> >> Having said that and reading it again, it sounds way more difficult than
> >> just migrating the Git repo.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> --
> >> Alexander Kriegisch
> >> https://scrum-master.de
> >>
> >>
> >> Andy Clement schrieb am 31.07.2020 22:23 (GMT +07:00):
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This
> >> meant
> >> > you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla),
> >> > also any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because
> >> > project committers cou

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Alexander Kriegisch]

Talk is cheap, I am aware of that. So if I request Bugzilla issues to be
migrated to GitHub issues and on top of that also request redirection, I
know I am not the guy who has to do all the work. My argument here is
that old issues are still a valuable source of information, even closed
ones. IMO they are just as important as documentation, especially
because documentation has not been updated for so long and everything
about new features or bugfixes in AspectJ is only documented as release
notes pointing to lists of issues.

It looks like others have done such migrations before, here are a few
links, [1] pointing to [2] and also mentioning re-using information
created during the migration in order to implement redirection. [2] also
mentions a dry-run option and links to some derivative tools based in
itself. Maybe something there could be useful.

The Python script under [3] looks more simplistic, I do not know if it
would be adequate.

There are also some answers under [4], maybe one of them could be
helpful.

[1] https://www.theozimmermann.net/2017/10/bugzilla-to-github/
[2] https://github.com/berestovskyy/bugzilla2github
[3] 
https://github.com/wilzbach/bugzilla-migration/blob/master/bugzilla2github.py
[4] https://stackoverflow.com/q/7281304/1082681

-- 
Alexander Kriegisch
https://scrum-master.de


Andy Clement schrieb am 02.08.2020 07:09 (GMT +07:00):
> 
> 
> I didn't dive into the details with the webmaster (yet) - he simply
> offered archiving our bugzilla or continuing to use bugzilla - no
> migration mentioned but I wouldn't want a full migration anyway, there is
> too much old irrelevant stuff in there. I haven't spoken to him about
> possible forwarding options either. If I could coordinate 'open bugzillas
> updated in the last 1-2 years' or something like that for a migration, I'd
> possibly try that.
> 
> My current plan (obviously the laziest option) is just to continue with
> both and gradually folks will stop using bugzilla, it doesn't get a ton of
> traffic anyway. Github issues are the future from my point of view. The
> README on the project should indicate that and anywhere else I can mention
> it should also get updated to indicate that.
> 
> cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 20:17, Alexander Kriegisch
> mailto:alexan...@kriegisch.name>
> > wrote:
> 
>> This is good news indeed, Andy. Thank you and everyone involved for
>> this.
>> 
>> For now there are no existing issues there, so I would like to know if
>> in the future there will be two issue tracking systems or if there is
>> any plan to migrate the Bugzilla issues to GitHub too. Or maybe Bugzilla
>> will stay the leading system? Bugzilla contains lots of historical, but
>> still relevant information, release notes, mailing list discussions and
>> StackOverflow comments/answers are pointing there etc. But it is ugly,
>> difficult to use, there is no text formatting etc. So migrating
>> everything to GitHub in a batch process and automatically adding links
>> (even if only as comments) from the Bugzilla issue to the corresponding
>> GitHub issue would be a good thing to do. Automatic redirection would be
>> even better, but probably difficult technically. In any case Bugzilla
>> could stay active in a read-only mode.
>> 
>> Having said that and reading it again, it sounds way more difficult than
>> just migrating the Git repo.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> --
>> Alexander Kriegisch
>> https://scrum-master.de
>> 
>> 
>> Andy Clement schrieb am 31.07.2020 22:23 (GMT +07:00):
>> >
>> >
>> > Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This
>> meant
>> > you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla),
>> > also any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because
>> > project committers couldn't process them easily.
>> >
>> >
>> > Today, the copy of aspectj at
>> > https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should be a full
>> > proper, Github repo! Woohoo! The issues tab is alive and PRs should
>> work
>> > properly.
>> >
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> ___
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>>  
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> 

___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Andy Clement]

I didn't dive into the details with the webmaster (yet) - he simply offered
archiving our bugzilla or continuing to use bugzilla - no migration
mentioned but I wouldn't want a full migration anyway, there is too much
old irrelevant stuff in there. I haven't spoken to him about possible
forwarding options either. If I could coordinate 'open bugzillas updated in
the last 1-2 years' or something like that for a migration, I'd possibly
try that.

My current plan (obviously the laziest option) is just to continue with
both and gradually folks will stop using bugzilla, it doesn't get a ton of
traffic anyway. Github issues are the future from my point of view. The
README on the project should indicate that and anywhere else I can mention
it should also get updated to indicate that.

cheers,
Andy

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 20:17, Alexander Kriegisch 
wrote:

> This is good news indeed, Andy. Thank you and everyone involved for
> this.
>
> For now there are no existing issues there, so I would like to know if
> in the future there will be two issue tracking systems or if there is
> any plan to migrate the Bugzilla issues to GitHub too. Or maybe Bugzilla
> will stay the leading system? Bugzilla contains lots of historical, but
> still relevant information, release notes, mailing list discussions and
> StackOverflow comments/answers are pointing there etc. But it is ugly,
> difficult to use, there is no text formatting etc. So migrating
> everything to GitHub in a batch process and automatically adding links
> (even if only as comments) from the Bugzilla issue to the corresponding
> GitHub issue would be a good thing to do. Automatic redirection would be
> even better, but probably difficult technically. In any case Bugzilla
> could stay active in a read-only mode.
>
> Having said that and reading it again, it sounds way more difficult than
> just migrating the Git repo.
>
> Best regards
> --
> Alexander Kriegisch
> https://scrum-master.de
>
>
> Andy Clement schrieb am 31.07.2020 22:23 (GMT +07:00):
> >
> >
> > Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This
> meant
> > you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla),
> > also any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because
> > project committers couldn't process them easily.
> >
> >
> > Today, the copy of aspectj at
> > https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should be a full
> > proper, Github repo! Woohoo! The issues tab is alive and PRs should work
> > properly.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
> ___
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Alexander Kriegisch]

This is good news indeed, Andy. Thank you and everyone involved for
this.

For now there are no existing issues there, so I would like to know if
in the future there will be two issue tracking systems or if there is
any plan to migrate the Bugzilla issues to GitHub too. Or maybe Bugzilla
will stay the leading system? Bugzilla contains lots of historical, but
still relevant information, release notes, mailing list discussions and
StackOverflow comments/answers are pointing there etc. But it is ugly,
difficult to use, there is no text formatting etc. So migrating
everything to GitHub in a batch process and automatically adding links
(even if only as comments) from the Bugzilla issue to the corresponding
GitHub issue would be a good thing to do. Automatic redirection would be
even better, but probably difficult technically. In any case Bugzilla
could stay active in a read-only mode.

Having said that and reading it again, it sounds way more difficult than
just migrating the Git repo.

Best regards
-- 
Alexander Kriegisch
https://scrum-master.de


Andy Clement schrieb am 31.07.2020 22:23 (GMT +07:00):
> 
> 
> Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This meant
> you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla),
> also any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because
> project committers couldn't process them easily.
> 
> 
> Today, the copy of aspectj at
> https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should be a full
> proper, Github repo! Woohoo! The issues tab is alive and PRs should work
> properly.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 

___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

[aspectj-users] AspectJ at Github

[Andy Clement]

Up until yesterday what was on Github was a mirror for AspectJ. This meant
you couldn't raise issues against it (you had to go back to bugzilla), also
any PRs that were submitted were very difficult to handle because project
committers couldn't process them easily.

Today, the copy of aspectj at https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj should
be a full proper, Github repo! Woohoo!  The issues tab is alive and PRs
should work properly.

cheers,
Andy
___
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users