On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>>
>> For *right now*, we are going to try cherry-picking the changes to the
>> affected branches when the change is first up for review. This is
>> clearly a pretty big change in proce
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> For *right now*, we are going to try cherry-picking the changes to the
> affected branches when the change is first up for review. This is
> clearly a pretty big change in process, as the act of merging into
> other branches was (a) always
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, George Joseph
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Jordan
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, George Joseph
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, George Joseph
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
> >>>
>
>
>
> Further updates after Day 2 (3
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, George Joseph
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>>>
Further updates after Day 2 (3?):
1. Due to popular request, the code review e-mails (which were nearing
spam
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, George Joseph
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>>
>
> I'm wondering if we can do this...
>
> You submit a review on the lowest target branch, using 13 as an example.
> The review gets reviewed and merged into 13. Once the revie
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> Hey everyone -
>
> As an update on the Git migration, here is the current state of the world:
>
> 1. The SVN repos have been marked read-only. While you will still be
> able to checkout from SVN, you shouldn't commit to any of the
> branch
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>
> 1. We need to determine the best way to handle maintaining the long
> running branches. While rebasing is appropriate for topic branches
> (team branches) that closely track a mainline branch, the mainline
> branches are a bit different.
Hey everyone -
As an update on the Git migration, here is the current state of the world:
1. The SVN repos have been marked read-only. While you will still be
able to checkout from SVN, you shouldn't commit to any of the
branches. Note that even if you do, those commits won't make it into
the Git
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Tzafrir Cohen
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:03:17PM -0600, Samuel Galarneau wrote:
>> > Just wanted to update everyone on the git migration status and illi
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are missing one thing. When committing to the current team branches,
>> the code is contributed under the license agreement.
>>
>> The code in my branches is available f
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:03:17PM -0600, Samuel Galarneau wrote:
> > Just wanted to update everyone on the git migration status and illicit some
> > feedback on a few items.
> >
> > We setup an instance o
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> You are missing one thing. When committing to the current team branches,
> the code is contributed under the license agreement.
>
> The code in my branches is available for Digium to use at any point in
> time. If I had to have it in m
On 23 Dec 2014, at 21:53, Paul Belanger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Leif Madsen
> wrote:
>> On 22 December 2014 at 18:34, Russell Bryant
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, George Joseph
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Galarneau
>>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Leif Madsen wrote:
> On 22 December 2014 at 18:34, Russell Bryant
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, George Joseph
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Galarneau
>>> wrote:
2 - we have a few options as far as team bra
On 22 December 2014 at 18:34, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, George Joseph <
> george.jos...@fairview5.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Galarneau > > wrote:
>>
>>> 2 - we have a few options as far as team branches go. We could configure
>>> user
+1 from me as well.
We use the methodology of using personalized repos for projects and it
works really well. We use either GitHub
or BitBucket, depending on the project - but both work equally well.
I'm confident that Atlassian will be happy to show their support by
contributing a Stash license
Hi,
Thanks for the update.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:03:17PM -0600, Samuel Galarneau wrote:
> Just wanted to update everyone on the git migration status and illicit some
> feedback on a few items.
>
> We setup an instance of Gerrit and Jenkins internally, imported the
> Asterisk testsuite into
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, George Joseph
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Galarneau
> wrote:
>
>> 2 - we have a few options as far as team branches go. We could configure
>> user branches using refs/heads/team/${username}/* permissions in Gerrit to
>> allow users to create
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Galarneau
wrote:
> Just wanted to update everyone on the git migration status and illicit
> some feedback on a few items.
>
> We setup an instance of Gerrit and Jenkins internally, imported the
> Asterisk testsuite into a git repo, and configured Gerrit an
Just wanted to update everyone on the git migration status and illicit some
feedback on a few items.
We setup an instance of Gerrit and Jenkins internally, imported the
Asterisk testsuite into a git repo, and configured Gerrit and Jenkins
together.
A few issues and questions have come up in the c
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Leif Madsen
wrote:
> I'm not adding much to the conversation, other than to echo both Russell and
> Paul that what they've described works very well. At Thinking Phones we
> moved to this same model as well from a subversion based system. The
> management of our r
I'm not adding much to the conversation, other than to echo both Russell
and Paul that what they've described works very well. At Thinking Phones we
moved to this same model as well from a subversion based system. The
management of our reviews (which didn't exist really before) and the
deployment o
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Samuel Galarneau
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A couple more comments about the magic happening here ...
>>>
>>> First, "git review" knows where to push based on a file checked in to the
>>> repo:
>>>
>>> $ cat .git
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Samuel Galarneau
wrote:
>
>> A couple more comments about the magic happening here ...
>>
>> First, "git review" knows where to push based on a file checked in to the
>> repo:
>>
>> $ cat .gitreview
>> [gerrit]
>> host=review.openstack.org
>> port=29418
>> projec
>
> A couple more comments about the magic happening here ...
>
> First, "git review" knows where to push based on a file checked in to the
> repo:
>
> $ cat .gitreview
> [gerrit]
> host=review.openstack.org
> port=29418
> project=openstack/nova.git
>
> "git review" also sets up a local commit hoo
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Samuel Galarneau
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant <
>> russ...@russellbryant.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
>>> wrote:
>>>
"And
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Samuel Galarneau
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "And there was much rejoicing"
>>>
>>
>> \o/
>>
>>
>>> But seriously, we all know that a lot of people h
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
>
>> "And there was much rejoicing"
>>
>
> \o/
>
>
>> But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to
>> Git for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Paul Belanger <
paul.belan...@polybeacon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
> >>
>
>
> Just to echo everything Russell typed, I also recommend above. While
> com
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>>
>> "And there was much rejoicing"
>
>
> \o/
>
>>
>> But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to Git
>> for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium ha
For the Gitolite stack I have recently setup I used SSL with SUEXEC
into a wrapper for Gitolite. This works out very well and you get
security plus the very fine grained access without having to toss SSH
keys around.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 201
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Corey Farrell wrote:
> The Wiki page mentions SSL certificates/SSH keys for commit access,
> but doesn't mention self-service SSH key management. I don't know the
> full details of how this works, but the ability to add/remove keys
> without involving Digium folk
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Shaun Ruffell wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, George Joseph <
> george.jos...@fairview5.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, George Joseph
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "And there was much rejoicing"
> >>
> >> To summarize:
> >> * A comparison of management platforms
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Russell Bryant <
>> russ...@russellbryant.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant <
>>> russ...@russellbryant.ne
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
>> wrote:
>>
> So, to set what I hope are a few guidelines:
>>>
>> (1) I know this is a subject with a lot of opinions, and
The Wiki page mentions SSL certificates/SSH keys for commit access,
but doesn't mention self-service SSH key management. I don't know the
full details of how this works, but the ability to add/remove keys
without involving Digium folks would be very nice. Management of
keys/certificates is someth
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant <
>> russ...@russellbryant.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From a high level, all patches go to a code review system. *Every*
>>> patch must
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
>
>> "And there was much rejoicing"
>>
>
> \o/
>
>
>> But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to
>> Git for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, George Joseph
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Jordan
> wrote:
>
>> "And there was much rejoicing"
>>
>> To summarize:
>> * A comparison of management platforms has been done. Barring a giant
>> catastrophe or some insane limitation, we're going
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote:
>
>> From a high level, all patches go to a code review system. *Every* patch
>> must be peer reviewed (usually by 2 people, but that's a policy decision).
>> *Every* patch must al
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> From a high level, all patches go to a code review system. *Every* patch
> must be peer reviewed (usually by 2 people, but that's a policy decision).
> *Every* patch must also pass tests. Once a patch passes both tests and
> peer review,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> "And there was much rejoicing"
>
\o/
> But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to Git
> for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium has wanted to move the
> project to Git for some time. I swore to mysel
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> "And there was much rejoicing"
>
> To summarize:
> * A comparison of management platforms has been done. Barring a giant
> catastrophe or some insane limitation, we're going to go simple here and
> stick with gitolite. Reasoning is on the
"And there was much rejoicing"
But seriously, we all know that a lot of people have wanted to move to Git
for some time. For the record, everyone at Digium has wanted to move the
project to Git for some time. I swore to myself that we wouldn't do another
Standard release on Subversion - after we s
46 matches
Mail list logo
