Git at the ASF
Hello! I thought to share [1] since some of you are 'interested' in git; The #CouchDB guys are now on git, at the ASF! Cheers! Matthias [1] http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: Git at the ASF
Am 10/7/11 9:04 PM, schrieb Matthias Wessendorf: Hello! I thought to share [1] since some of you are 'interested' in git; The #CouchDB guys are now on git, at the ASF! Cheers! Matthias [1] http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf Git support is still beta but nevertheless this is good news that the ASF soon will support GIT officially. Werner
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1 On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Manfred Geilermanfred.gei...@gmail.com wrote: +1 thanks leonardo --Manfred On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:24, Leonardo Uribelu4...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Myfaces core 1.2.7 and 1.1.7 were released. So we can close this vote and make the necessary changes. Just to note it, after reading all previous emails the suggested layout is this: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/1.1.x /branches/1.2.x If no objections I'll do the necessary changes on svn (note that to do this change we need to update nightly build configuration and I can't help with that). regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/28 Simon Lessard simon.lessar...@gmail.com +1 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1 thanks leonardo --Manfred On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:24, Leonardo Uribelu4...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Myfaces core 1.2.7 and 1.1.7 were released. So we can close this vote and make the necessary changes. Just to note it, after reading all previous emails the suggested layout is this: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/1.1.x /branches/1.2.x If no objections I'll do the necessary changes on svn (note that to do this change we need to update nightly build configuration and I can't help with that). regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/28 Simon Lessard simon.lessar...@gmail.com +1 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
Hi Myfaces core 1.2.7 and 1.1.7 were released. So we can close this vote and make the necessary changes. Just to note it, after reading all previous emails the suggested layout is this: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/1.1.x /branches/1.2.x If no objections I'll do the necessary changes on svn (note that to do this change we need to update nightly build configuration and I can't help with that). regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/28 Simon Lessard simon.lessar...@gmail.com +1 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote: sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
that would be great ! Thx Leo! -Matthias On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Leonardo Uribelu4...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Myfaces core 1.2.7 and 1.1.7 were released. So we can close this vote and make the necessary changes. Just to note it, after reading all previous emails the suggested layout is this: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/1.1.x /branches/1.2.x If no objections I'll do the necessary changes on svn (note that to do this change we need to update nightly build configuration and I can't help with that). regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/28 Simon Lessard simon.lessar...@gmail.com +1 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote: sure! On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com wrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
+1, but just a small suggestion. Right now I'm running the necessary steps for release myfaces core 1.2.7, core 1.1.7, so I would like if it is possible to delay this change after the release. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/5/27 Cagatay Civici cagatay.civ...@gmail.com +1 for sure On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.comwrote: +1 sounds good to me 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org: so, there are no objections in making the MyFaces 2.0 efforts become trunk ? -Matthias On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
Ah. Good point! Sent from my iPod. On 22.05.2009, at 21:10, Bernd Bohmann bernd.bohm...@atanion.com wrote: Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
[VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] SVN structure change (was: Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...))
Hello, +1 I would prefer /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: actually, I agree with Bernd. For the following layout: /trunk - 2.0 /branches/myfaces_1_1_x /branches/myfaces_1_2_x Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) So, I am +1 on the above svn layout -Matthias On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Ah lovely saturday morning and a general technology discussion. Ok here is the deal, it is a very common practice to use git for local versioning and svn or cvs for hosting the code (I do that very often). There are downsides to this practice. First of all git-svn does not have external parsing. Git has a similar mechanism subprojects but there is no bridget between git and svn in this regard, you have to symlink for instance manually to match the externals. Secondly it is a speed issue as well. Git is a distributed filesystem which does most operations locally and delegates the server to a storage system only. Which means you have local branches and local commit histories (one of the reasons why I use it) but the downside is it mirrors literally all revisions into you local filesystem (which is not as bad as it sounds since it stores the revisions very efficiently, way more than svn does) which means the initial mirror of a bigger project takes a very long time. And there the apache infrastructure which by far is not our idea comes into the game, having a read only git mirror speeds up this process much more swiftly. As for Andrews argument, this is no bothering from our side, as it seems the infrastructure people have been working on this for almost a year now and now have a stable infrastructure and many projects have moved towards this read only mirror. +1 exactly and I thought that when I provide some links (git.apache.org, the wiki pages etc) it makes it clear that this is not something that Werner and I are doing :-) Anyway there is a long on-going discussion regarding GIT; pros/cons all the FUD etc. is discussed on the members list (private, only for members). I recommended to make it more open (community@ for instance); Let's see where we heading Also, if you follow some of the Apache blogs you also see that some folks *care* about GIT (not only the two of us) -Matthias The also seem to think about providing the same fo Mercurial in the future. Werner Mike Kienenberger schrieb: I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly possible to do what Andrew suggests. From my limited git understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a front-end to svn or cvs. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...)
from Bernd, on a different thread: Hello, I would suggest following layout 1.1.x branch/1.1.x 1.2.x branch/1.2.x 2.0.x trunk because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are only in bugfix state. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Ok before I make myself a complete idiot... (Which I probably will be doing now) There are a load of errata in my previous post, more than the usual answering while doing other things and also being a completely chaotic personality, induced errors. I answered shortly after waking up and having a baby boy wanting attention at the same time. So excuse all the errata I made in my last post. Besides the usual typos, of course, Git is not a distributed filesystem (although it comes close to being actually a versioning filesystem) it is a distributed RCS (Or a complete moron if your are from the UK, it depends on your location of physical presence). So my excuses to everyone reading my last technobabble. Werner Werner Punz schrieb: Ah lovely saturday morning and a general technology discussion. Ok here is the deal, it is a very common practice to use git for local versioning and svn or cvs for hosting the code (I do that very often). There are downsides to this practice. First of all git-svn does not have external parsing. Git has a similar mechanism subprojects but there is no bridget between git and svn in this regard, you have to symlink for instance manually to match the externals. Secondly it is a speed issue as well. Git is a distributed filesystem which does most operations locally and delegates the server to a storage system only. Which means you have local branches and local commit histories (one of the reasons why I use it) but the downside is it mirrors literally all revisions into you local filesystem (which is not as bad as it sounds since it stores the revisions very efficiently, way more than svn does) which means the initial mirror of a bigger project takes a very long time. And there the apache infrastructure which by far is not our idea comes into the game, having a read only git mirror speeds up this process much more swiftly. As for Andrews argument, this is no bothering from our side, as it seems the infrastructure people have been working on this for almost a year now and now have a stable infrastructure and many projects have moved towards this read only mirror. The also seem to think about providing the same fo Mercurial in the future. Werner Mike Kienenberger schrieb: I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly possible to do what Andrew suggests. From my limited git understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a front-end to svn or cvs. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Werner, according to here: http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html we need to provide the following information, for the INFRA jira ticket: * Name of the codebase, for example Apache Tika * Name of the requested Git mirror, for example tika.git * Subversion path of the codebase, for example /lucene/tika/ * Subversion layout, in case it is different from the standard trunk, branches, tags structure. I think we may start with MyFaces core? Or do you think we should add *all* the subprojects? +1 to core I think core is find for now and later we can add tomahawk and orchestra etc... have in mind that git basically mirrors all revisions and you cannot checkout subprojects like in svn, so having a split is preferrable. Werner
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people!
[MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...)
Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x -Matthias -Matthias I think core is find for now and later we can add tomahawk and orchestra etc... have in mind that git basically mirrors all revisions and you cannot checkout subprojects like in svn, so having a split is preferrable. Werner -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces CORE] SVN layout (was: Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...)
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi, ... Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes trunk And the following efforts are on a branch: -2.0.x -1.1.x +1
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly possible to do what Andrew suggests. From my limited git understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a front-end to svn or cvs. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Hey andrew, Thanks for your mail. There is a discussion on the members list. Let me point them to our thread. Thanks again! Sent from my iPod. On 15.05.2009, at 22:08, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Anderw, I asked to move the thread to committ...@. Thx Matthias Sent from my iPod. On 15.05.2009, at 22:21, Matthias Wessendorf mwessend...@gmail.com wrote: Hey andrew, Thanks for your mail. There is a discussion on the members list. Let me point them to our thread. Thanks again! Sent from my iPod. On 15.05.2009, at 22:08, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Ah lovely saturday morning and a general technology discussion. Ok here is the deal, it is a very common practice to use git for local versioning and svn or cvs for hosting the code (I do that very often). There are downsides to this practice. First of all git-svn does not have external parsing. Git has a similar mechanism subprojects but there is no bridget between git and svn in this regard, you have to symlink for instance manually to match the externals. Secondly it is a speed issue as well. Git is a distributed filesystem which does most operations locally and delegates the server to a storage system only. Which means you have local branches and local commit histories (one of the reasons why I use it) but the downside is it mirrors literally all revisions into you local filesystem (which is not as bad as it sounds since it stores the revisions very efficiently, way more than svn does) which means the initial mirror of a bigger project takes a very long time. And there the apache infrastructure which by far is not our idea comes into the game, having a read only git mirror speeds up this process much more swiftly. As for Andrews argument, this is no bothering from our side, as it seems the infrastructure people have been working on this for almost a year now and now have a stable infrastructure and many projects have moved towards this read only mirror. The also seem to think about providing the same fo Mercurial in the future. Werner Mike Kienenberger schrieb: I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly possible to do what Andrew suggests. From my limited git understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a front-end to svn or cvs. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com wrote: I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples technology fix. But this is just my opinion. Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from the client, not the server. For example, http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. -Andrew FYI: http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: some more infos: http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: core Ok, I filed this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... (since we already work on 2.0.x) +1 1.1.x branch 1.2 trunk 2.0 branch hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) -Matthias instead of 1.1 trunk 1.2 trunk_1.2 2.0 branch this also helps the infrastructure people! -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi fellow contributors and committers, a recently common asked question is: Is it possible for an ASF project (- myfaces and its subprojects) to use git ? The answer is: Yes and no. All projects need to use svn as the central store of all source code, but individual committers and contributors can use git as an alternative svn client. See http://git.apache.org/ and http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache for the currently available tools and some initial documentation. So, question is now, do we (Apache MyFaces) want such a read-only git mirror ? If yes, I'd be more than happy to run this on the infrastructure-...@apache.org list. Just to give a short summary why a read only mirror is preferrable over a full git-svn checkout. The git mirror would allow git deltas to be downloaded instead of single svn commits, which would make the initial checkout (git mirror) way faster! As for svn externals, git-svn cannot deal with externals directly but there are workarounds like using git subprojects or using symlinks. I personally prefer nowadays git over svn even despite the fact that only Intellij and a handful of editors have decent git integration. Git is simply so much better in dealing with day to day versioning tasks that going back to plain svn is painful! Werner ok... let me now bring it up on infrastructure-...@apache.org. -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Werner, according to here: http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html we need to provide the following information, for the INFRA jira ticket: * Name of the codebase, for example Apache Tika * Name of the requested Git mirror, for example tika.git * Subversion path of the codebase, for example /lucene/tika/ * Subversion layout, in case it is different from the standard trunk, branches, tags structure. I think we may start with MyFaces core? Or do you think we should add *all* the subprojects? For MyFaces CORE, I'd suggest the following: Name of the codebase: Apache MyFaces Name of the requested Git mirror: myfaces_core.git Subversion path of the codebase: /myfaces/core/ -Matthias On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com wrote: Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi fellow contributors and committers, a recently common asked question is: Is it possible for an ASF project (- myfaces and its subprojects) to use git ? The answer is: Yes and no. All projects need to use svn as the central store of all source code, but individual committers and contributors can use git as an alternative svn client. See http://git.apache.org/ and http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache for the currently available tools and some initial documentation. So, question is now, do we (Apache MyFaces) want such a read-only git mirror ? If yes, I'd be more than happy to run this on the infrastructure-...@apache.org list. Just to give a short summary why a read only mirror is preferrable over a full git-svn checkout. The git mirror would allow git deltas to be downloaded instead of single svn commits, which would make the initial checkout (git mirror) way faster! As for svn externals, git-svn cannot deal with externals directly but there are workarounds like using git subprojects or using symlinks. I personally prefer nowadays git over svn even despite the fact that only Intellij and a handful of editors have decent git integration. Git is simply so much better in dealing with day to day versioning tasks that going back to plain svn is painful! Werner ok... let me now bring it up on infrastructure-...@apache.org. -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi fellow contributors and committers, a recently common asked question is: Is it possible for an ASF project (- myfaces and its subprojects) to use git ? The answer is: Yes and no. All projects need to use svn as the central store of all source code, but individual committers and contributors can use git as an alternative svn client. See http://git.apache.org/ and http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache for the currently available tools and some initial documentation. So, question is now, do we (Apache MyFaces) want such a read-only git mirror ? If yes, I'd be more than happy to run this on the infrastructure-...@apache.org list. Definitely although our extensive use of externals within our svn structure might pose a problem... Werner
Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: Hi fellow contributors and committers, a recently common asked question is: Is it possible for an ASF project (- myfaces and its subprojects) to use git ? The answer is: Yes and no. All projects need to use svn as the central store of all source code, but individual committers and contributors can use git as an alternative svn client. See http://git.apache.org/ and http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache for the currently available tools and some initial documentation. So, question is now, do we (Apache MyFaces) want such a read-only git mirror ? If yes, I'd be more than happy to run this on the infrastructure-...@apache.org list. Just to give a short summary why a read only mirror is preferrable over a full git-svn checkout. The git mirror would allow git deltas to be downloaded instead of single svn commits, which would make the initial checkout (git mirror) way faster! As for svn externals, git-svn cannot deal with externals directly but there are workarounds like using git subprojects or using symlinks. I personally prefer nowadays git over svn even despite the fact that only Intellij and a handful of editors have decent git integration. Git is simply so much better in dealing with day to day versioning tasks that going back to plain svn is painful! Werner
[source control] git and the ASF ...
Hi fellow contributors and committers, a recently common asked question is: Is it possible for an ASF project (- myfaces and its subprojects) to use git ? The answer is: Yes and no. All projects need to use svn as the central store of all source code, but individual committers and contributors can use git as an alternative svn client. See http://git.apache.org/ and http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache for the currently available tools and some initial documentation. So, question is now, do we (Apache MyFaces) want such a read-only git mirror ? If yes, I'd be more than happy to run this on the infrastructure-...@apache.org list. Greetings, Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
