we should make a task in jira for it. That might make it easier to follow
the status of all this.
-Robert
From: hu...@internode.on.net
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:15:21 +1000
To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] Moving Mojo from svn to git
On 25/06/2011, at 12:26 AM, Timothy Astl
On 25/06/2011, at 12:26 AM, Timothy Astle wrote:
> Maybe I need an executive summary of this thread since it's hard to follow:
>
> * Is the plan to move all of the Mojos from the SVN repository to the GIT
> repository in Codehaus?
> * Is the plan to abandon Codehaus and move to Github?
> * Other
Good luck Kristian.
Thanks for your help.
It will do a good blog article to explain how to migrate from svn to
Git in a complex context. Many projects did this choice of the
easiness in SVN by having only one trunk/tags/branches for components
with different lifecycles.
It will be useful to migrat
I am working on establishing a chain of commands that will generate a
repo for each mojo with all the tags and trunk. (None of the branches
from svn.). From this I'll make a script.
The script would hopefullt generate repos for *all* the projects.
Unfortunately it's a bit tricky due to the layout
Le 24 juin 2011 à 16:26, Timothy Astle a écrit :
Thanks and I haven't confused the two. ;-)
Maybe I need an executive summary of this thread since it's hard to follow:
* Is the plan to move all of the Mojos from the SVN repository to the GIT
repository in Codehaus?
It is what we are studying
Thanks and I haven't
confused the two. ;-)
Maybe I need an executive summary of this thread since it's hard
to follow:
* Is the plan to move all of the Mojos from the SVN repository
to the GIT repository in Codehaus?
* I
opher Hunt wrote:
From: Christopher Hunt
Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git
To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 1:18 PM
Mark Struberg wrote:
<...> and we would need to signup codehaus as an organisation at githu
place to use pull
> request mechanism.
>
>
> 2011/6/24 Mark Struberg :
> > I don't care about the name, I care about _who_ will do that?
> > You would need to duplicate Xircles and a lot other things...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > ---
On 24/06/2011, at 11:17 PM, Timothy Astle wrote:
> 2. If the plan is to move to GitHub, then is the plan to basically abandon
> CodeHaus? GitHub has it's own issue tracking system... probably little need
> for CodeHaus anymore.
Let's not confuse Git with GitHub. You can use Git without GitHub
Mark Struberg wrote:
> <...> and we would need to signup codehaus as an organisation at github. <...>
>
How so?
; LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 6/24/11, Julien Ponge wrote:
>
> From: Julien Ponge
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 12:32 PM
>
>
>
> We'd better
I don't care about the name, I care about _who_ will do that?
You would need to duplicate Xircles and a lot other things...
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 6/24/11, Julien Ponge wrote:
From: Julien Ponge
Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git
To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
Date: F
gt;
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 6/24/11, Paul Gier mailto:pg...@redhat.com)>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Paul Gier mailto:pg...@redhat.com)>
> > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git
> > To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org (mailto:dev@mojo.codehaus.or
who would maintain that in this
case?
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 6/24/11, Paul Gier wrote:
> From: Paul Gier
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 1:14 AM
> Not sure I understand you. I
> wasn'
Den 24.06.2011 11:23, skrev Arnaud Héritier:
Yes.
The only thing I would like we try to control is that all releases of mojos
published in central are coming from a tag in a git repo from codehaus.
In theory nobody can publish under our groupId without using our Nexus @
Codehaus. But it is import
>
> -Robert
>
> > From: hu...@internode.on.net
> > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:13:43 +1000
>
> > To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git (was: preparing 2.3.0
> release -> github )
>
> >
> > +1 for
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <
kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 23.06.2011 14:48, skrev nicolas de loof:
>
> 2011/6/23 Mark Struberg
>>
>> generally I'm
>>>
>>> +1 for moving the repos from SVN to GIT
>>>
>>> -1 for moving the repo from codehaus.org to github.
>>
Each git repository has a pom.xml at the root level, and each repo
contains the subject of one release only. I think the internal
structure of the git repo is
not really anything that needs to be discussed. The "external" view is
mostly of which url we put up on a webpage, and I think Paul's co
The convention "group/project-repo" seems to be followed on other sites
as well.
http://git.kernel.org/
On 06/23/2011 08:14 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
> Not sure I understand you. I wasn't saying we should have a single git
> repo, I was suggesting that each plugin/project is located in it's own
> git
Not sure I understand you. I wasn't saying we should have a single git
repo, I was suggesting that each plugin/project is located in it's own
git repo under the common directory "mojo". Instead of prefixing the
name of the repo with "mojo-". Either way there is one git repo per
mojo project. Th
until you try to release.
if you release separately, you need separate git repositories.
if you release at the same time, same git repo.
so animal-sniffer would be one repo for the tools, one repo for each of the
signatures.
- Stephen
---
Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes
; From: hu...@internode.on.net
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:13:43 +1000
>> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
>> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git (was: preparing
> 2.3.0 release -> github )
>>
>> +1 for moving to git - much easier to work with remotely.
&
right?
-Robert
> From: hu...@internode.on.net
> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:13:43 +1000
> To: dev@mojo.codehaus.org
> Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git (was: preparing 2.3.0
> release -> github )
>
> +1 for moving to git - much easier to work with r
+1 for moving to git - much easier to work with remotely.
+1 for moving each mojo to its own git repo
On the latter point, you *need* to do this. Anything that potentially requires
its own tag or branch needs its own git repo.
Kind regards,
Christopher
--
>
>
>>
>> I am a bit unsure as to what is the expected gain wrt moving the
> /authorative/ repo to github. I've said this earlier;
> an authorative repo located at codehaus with mirroring to github is
> practically the same. Handling pull requests is the only
> difference I can think of but it sho
Den 23.06.2011 14:48, skrev nicolas de loof:
2011/6/23 Mark Struberg
generally I'm
+1 for moving the repos from SVN to GIT
-1 for moving the repo from codehaus.org to github.
Reason is that this would _heavily_ fragment this established community.
Why not just setup a GIT repo at codehaus?
o there are other issues which would make it hard to
> inject this info. You can find most of it in the issue itself or on the
> mailing list archives.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 6/23/11, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
>
> From: Arnaud Héritier
> Subject: Re:
info. You can find most of it in the issue itself or on the mailing list
archives.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
From: Arnaud Héritier
Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] moving Mojo from svn to git (was: preparing 2.3.0
release -> github )
To: dev@mojo.codehau
2011/6/23 Arnaud Héritier :
> Myself I'm not at all in favor to migrate to one Git repo which could be the
> case which requires such feature.
I haven't got much experience with Git. Basically, I'm all in favour
for the ability to check out a single Mojo and work on that.
OTOH: Does that leave u
I'm back
Sorry for the delay
Myself I'm not at all in favor to migrate to one Git repo which could be the
case which requires such feature.
I think we need to split/convert our SVN in many Git repositories, one per
plugin
Thus it is less easy than just converting a svn with trunk/tags/branches
in
The mojo project will hit the "sparse checkout" issue with the release plugin
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-457
I'm not a fan of the fix that is checked in for MRELEASE-457. Would rather see
a subdirectory injected from the pom.
Also, would prefer github over a codehaus repo as it i
31 matches
Mail list logo
