On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> I just cloned and checked out some of the tags and branches from cxf-test. I
> think it looks pretty good now.
> Should we do an official vote about the switch or can we already consider
> this discussion a consensus?
Lazy consensus i
I just cloned and checked out some of the tags and branches from
cxf-test. I think it looks pretty good now.
Should we do an official vote about the switch or can we already
consider this discussion a consensus?
The other question is when to switch. I am in no hurry to do so. From my
side afte
On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Thorsten Höger wrote:
> Some comments after playing around with the test repo:
>
> - I can only see branches for 2.5.x, 2.6.x and 2.7.x. but 2.4 and before are
> missing
Since we are not maintaining those versions anymore, there is no point in
keeping the branche
> >
> > The downside is for the files that have existed since 2.1, a "git
> > blame" and log and such will only go back to 2.1. Blame will list me
> > as the person for any lines that have existed since 2.1 (since I did
> > the "release:prepare" for 2.1 and all the commits prior to that are
> > squ
Some comments after playing around with the test repo:
- I can only see branches for 2.5.x, 2.6.x and 2.7.x. but 2.4 and before are
missing
- there are no tags for released versions
- maybe trunk should be renamed to master (git-style)
Am 23.01.2014 19:05, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
> On Jan 22, 2014
On 23.01.2014 19:05, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
The downside is for the files that have existed since 2.1, a “git
blame” and log and such will only go back to 2.1. Blame will list me
as the person for any lines that have existed since 2.1 (since I did
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>
> 2) I’d LIKE to rebuild the git repo and possibly remove all the /incubator
> revisions and tags. Kind of “start” at the graduation. Maybe a bit before
> at the 2.0-incubator release. Or at least all the “lib” dirs out of them.
> Th
Am 22.01.2014 18:25, schrieb Sergey Beryozkin:
> On 22/01/14 17:18, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Christian Schneider
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is one thing that might be different.
>>>
>>> I recently "committed/pushed" a change from a non committer to karaf. I
>>> proposed
On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
> Does using 'git diff' and attaching the patches to JIRA works at all ?
>
Yep… it works perfectly.
Jeff
> Sergey
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am 22.01.2014 15:40, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
Anyone who i
On 22/01/14 17:18, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
There is one thing that might be different.
I recently "committed/pushed" a change from a non committer to karaf. I
proposed to the developer to fork the karaf repo on github and commit and push
On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> There is one thing that might be different.
>
> I recently "committed/pushed" a change from a non committer to karaf. I
> proposed to the developer to fork the karaf repo on github and commit and
> push there. I then thought to use a
There is one thing that might be different.
I recently "committed/pushed" a change from a non committer to karaf. I
proposed to the developer to fork the karaf repo on github and commit
and push there. I then thought to use a github pull request but this
probably would not have worked as the k
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> On 22/01/14 15:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> Few thoughts though:
>>
>> 1) Lets wait until after at least milestone2. We’re close and I don’t want
>> to screw any of that up.
>>
>> 2) I’d LIKE to rebuild the git repo and possibly remove all
On 22/01/14 15:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:20 AM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and Karaf).
As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports) I think
it makes sense to also do this switch fo
On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:20 AM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and Karaf).
> As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports) I
> think it makes sense to also do this switch for cxf.
>
> Any opinions?
I’m OK
+1
I am using git-svn and it is a little bit of pain to sync the svn
props when down porting changes. (and this is resulting in superfluous
commits in the commits list of 2.7.x and even more in 2.6.x).
So I also would prefer to switching to plain git.
regards, aki
2014/1/22 Christian Schneider
+1
From: Willem Jiang [willem.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2014 13:20
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Discuss: Switching cxf to git
It’s not pleasure work to merge the patches between the branches in SVN behind
the GFW.
I’m +1 for swathing cxf
It’s not pleasure work to merge the patches between the branches in SVN behind
the GFW.
I’m +1 for swathing cxf to git.
--
Willem Jiang
Red Hat, Inc.
Web: http://www.redhat.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com(http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/)
(English)
http://jnn.iteye.com(http://jnn.ja
I would love to have CXF use git. I currently use the git copy and it would be
great if
this repo would be the "truth".
Regards,
Thorsten
Am 22.01.2014 12:10, schrieb Dennis Sosnoski:
> +1
>
> I'm using git-svn now, would love to have git direct.
>
> - Dennis
>
> On 01/22/2014 10:20 PM, Christ
+1
I'm using git-svn now, would love to have git direct.
- Dennis
On 01/22/2014 10:20 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and
Karaf).
As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports)
I think it makes sense t
Yes, good idea!
David
On 22 January 2014 09:20, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and
> Karaf).
> As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports) I
> think it makes sense to also do this switch for cxf.
>
> Any
On 22/01/14 09:20, Christian Schneider wrote:
Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and
Karaf).
As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports) I
think it makes sense to also do this switch for cxf.
Any opinions?
Comment from someone who has be
+1
－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
On 2014-1-22, at 下午5:20, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Recently many apache projects switched from svn to git (like Camel and Karaf).
> As git has many advantages compared to svn (especially for back ports) I
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
