On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Trying to understand your suggestion. Questions below:
>
> On 2011-01-08, at 17:16, John Ralls wrote:
>
>> […]
>>
>> Maybe instead you could create a fake-master branch off of master in your
>> git-svn repo and tie fake-master to
Hi John,
Trying to understand your suggestion. Questions below:
On 2011-01-08, at 17:16, John Ralls wrote:
> […]
>
> Maybe instead you could create a fake-master branch off of master in your
> git-svn repo and tie fake-master to github's master.
You mean:
[git-svn master] git checkout -b fak
On 01/10/2011 08:28 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
On Monday 10 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
At least as I understand it, branches in git are nothing more than a
pointer to the "head" commit and, structurally, are pretty much the same
(if not identical) to tags. A branch in git is a tag on point
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Colin Law wrote:
> On 10 January 2011 15:56, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>> At least as I understand it, branches in git are nothing more than a pointer
>> to the "head" commit and, structurally, are pretty much the same (if not
>> identical) to tags. A branch in git is a ta
On Monday 10 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> At least as I understand it, branches in git are nothing more than a
> pointer to the "head" commit and, structurally, are pretty much the same
> (if not identical) to tags. A branch in git is a tag on point in
> development that is moved to other co
On Monday 10 January 2011, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Geert Janssens writes:
> > On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> >> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
> >> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
> >> "followable path" tha
On 10 January 2011 15:56, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> At least as I understand it, branches in git are nothing more than a pointer
> to the "head" commit and, structurally, are pretty much the same (if not
> identical) to tags. A branch in git is a tag on point in development that is
> moved to other co
On 10 January 2011 15:48, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Colin Law writes:
>
>> On 10 January 2011 15:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>> Geert Janssens writes:
>>>
On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
> are jus
At least as I understand it, branches in git are nothing more than a
pointer to the "head" commit and, structurally, are pretty much the same
(if not identical) to tags. A branch in git is a tag on point in
development that is moved to other commits if you commit "to" that
branch. In simpler wo
Colin Law writes:
> On 10 January 2011 15:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Geert Janssens writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
On 10 January 2011 15:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Geert Janssens writes:
>
>> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>>> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
>>> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
>>> "followable path" that
On Monday 10 January 2011, Geert Janssens wrote:
>
> What I don't have experience with at all yet is working with others via
> git. Like pushing or pulling changes to/from other git repositories.
>
Oh, and I forgot to add that I don't have experience with svk. So I don't know
it that also impro
Geert Janssens writes:
> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
>> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
>> "followable path" that svn provides.
>>
> That's interesting, because I feel
On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
> "followable path" that svn provides.
>
That's interesting, because I feel exactly the oposite. I don't lik
On Thursday 06 January 2011, Mike Alexander wrote:
> --On January 5, 2011 2:12:06 PM -0500 Derek Atkins
> > I get the "git is cool" aspect of it. But I'm trying to get people
> > ignore the "git is cool" part and to seriously think about the
> > technicalities: what does git buy us that we don't
On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-01-07, at 23:56, John Ralls wrote:
>
>>> […]
>>
>> I've moved you into the "owners" group. Do what you will.
>
> Thanks. I’ve pushed a new gnucash repository, as well as a gnucash-docs
> repository.
>
>> I've attached the autho
Hi,
On 2011-01-07, at 23:56, John Ralls wrote:
>> […]
>
> I've moved you into the "owners" group. Do what you will.
Thanks. I’ve pushed a new gnucash repository, as well as a gnucash-docs
repository.
> I've attached the authors file I made. If you reimport from svn it will match
> up svn acc
On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-01-07, at 16:41, John Ralls wrote:
>
>> […]
>>
>> Meanwhile, I see that Yawar has pushed his own git svn import onto the
>> Github repo and also pushed a commit in a new, rather weirdly-named branch.
>> Yawar, since you have the
Hi,
On 2011-01-07, at 16:41, John Ralls wrote:
> […]
>
> Meanwhile, I see that Yawar has pushed his own git svn import onto the Github
> repo and also pushed a commit in a new, rather weirdly-named branch. Yawar,
> since you have the svn data that goes with that import, you've bought keeping
On Jan 5, 2011, at 5:58 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
>> John Ralls writes:
>>
>>> I also started a straight git svn clone, which stopped mysteriously
>>> about the same place. I just restarted it.
>>
>> What's the bottleneck in doing the conver
--On January 5, 2011 2:12:06 PM -0500 Derek Atkins
wrote:
I understand the "I like git, so everyone should use it" mentality.
I'm trying to make sure we don't move over to git only because of
that. I want to make sure there are real technical reasons to spend
the time and effort to not only m
On Jan 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> John Ralls writes:
>
>> I also started a straight git svn clone, which stopped mysteriously
>> about the same place. I just restarted it.
>
> What's the bottleneck in doing the conversion?
This time I kept a tee-file of the output, but I didn
I maintain my own, local git repository and have a mixed love/hare
relationship with git.
For me, I like the lightweight branching and merge capabilities. I like
the built-in bisection to locate introduced changes in result (generally
bugs, but sometimes enhancements as well). For local deve
Yawar Amin writes:
> Hi Derek,
>
> On 2011-01-03, at 11:53, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
>>> […]
>>
>> Apparently there are also issues with importing branches and tags
>> appropriately, as per John's other email.
>
> There is an issue in that git-svn imports branches and tags as remote
> refs (roughly
Matthijs Kooijman writes:
> Hey Derek,
>
> a few notes on this, from a patch submitter's point of view :-)
>
>> >> So.. Feel free to play with git. But don't expect your SHA history to
>> >> remain 100% complete or that the repo you create will at all resemble the
>> >> "offical" git repo, assu
John Ralls writes:
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Christian Stimming wrote:
>
>> Am Dienstag, 4. Januar 2011 schrieb John Ralls:
>>> The second try stopped at r15521 for reasons that aren't entirely clear to
>>> me.
>>
>> This particular revision has nothing uncommon at all. I wouldn't understand
On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 4. Januar 2011 schrieb John Ralls:
>> The second try stopped at r15521 for reasons that aren't entirely clear to
>> me.
>
> This particular revision has nothing uncommon at all. I wouldn't understand
> why git-svn stops partic
Am Dienstag, 4. Januar 2011 schrieb John Ralls:
> The second try stopped at r15521 for reasons that aren't entirely clear to
> me.
This particular revision has nothing uncommon at all. I wouldn't understand
why git-svn stops particularly there.
There are other SVN revisions which cause occasiona
Hi Derek,
On 2011-01-03, at 11:53, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> […]
>
> Apparently there are also issues with importing branches and tags
> appropriately, as per John's other email.
There is an issue in that git-svn imports branches and tags as remote refs
(roughly, pointers to the head of a branch)
Hi John,
On 2011-01-04, at 15:11, John Ralls wrote:
> […]
>
> In trying to find out, I read to the bottom of the git-svn man page, where I
> found a section called "Caveats". The first paragraph says:
>> For the sake of simplicity and interoperating with a less-capable system
>> (SVN), it is r
The second try stopped at r15521 for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me.
Trying to get it to go further with git svn rebase are met with an error
message: Unable to determine upstream SVN information from working tree
history. I still don't know what that means.
In trying to find out, I
Hey Derek,
a few notes on this, from a patch submitter's point of view :-)
> >> So.. Feel free to play with git. But don't expect your SHA history to
> >> remain 100% complete or that the repo you create will at all resemble the
> >> "offical" git repo, assuming we do change over to git.
> >
>
: Mike Alexander
Cc: gnucash-devel gnucash
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 3:15:44 PM
Subject: Re: Public Git repo
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> --On January 3, 2011 10:13:34 AM -0800 Phil Longstaff
>wrote:
>
>>> Compared to SVN: topic/feature/bugfix branches
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> --On January 3, 2011 10:13:34 AM -0800 Phil Longstaff
> wrote:
>
>>> Compared to SVN: topic/feature/bugfix branches. For example look at
>>> [2] and notice how each bug I’ve worked on has been in a separate
>>> Git branch. That history has b
--On January 3, 2011 10:13:34 AM -0800 Phil Longstaff
wrote:
Compared to SVN: topic/feature/bugfix branches. For example look at
[2] and notice how each bug I’ve worked on has been in a separate
Git branch. That history has been squished flat by SVN, but Git
remembers the branchy development.
On Jan 3, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> John,
>
> John Ralls writes:
>
>> OK, Christian, you're in.
>>
>> My first import try doesn't seem to have worked out very well, so I'll
>> have another go in a bit.
>
> Can you please keep good notes with what you're trying and what
> worked
See comment below prefixed by [Phil]
Phil
-
I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something for it.
From: Derek Atkins
To: Yawar Amin
Cc: gnucash-devel gnucash
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 11:53:51 AM
Subject: Re: Public Git repo
John,
John Ralls writes:
> OK, Christian, you're in.
>
> My first import try doesn't seem to have worked out very well, so I'll
> have another go in a bit.
Can you please keep good notes with what you're trying and what
worked/failed in the process? This way we all can learn about it.
Maybe a
Yawar Amin writes:
>> HOWEVER
>> until we, the set of developers, decide as a group to migrate to git we
>> should not bless any tree as "the canonical tree”.
>
> This was actually why I suggested a ‘gatekeeper’ Git repo which we use
> to access the canonical SVN repo.[1] Any devs comfortable wit
On Jan 3, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Zitat von John Ralls :
>>> Anyway, to end with a clear next action: John, would you be kind enough to
>>> create a ‘gnucash’ organization on GitHub and upload your repo there? I
>>> would like to clone it and try working on #634456.
>>
>>
Zitat von Derek Atkins :
And for the record, I feel using github would be okay for these trials,
but the official git repository should remain on our own server.
(Creating git.gnucash.org as a cname for code is perfectly reasonable, if
we decide to move to git).
I've grown to like github very m
Zitat von John Ralls :
Anyway, to end with a clear next action: John, would you be kind
enough to create a ‘gnucash’ organization on GitHub and upload your
repo there? I would like to clone it and try working on #634456.
OK, I've made a Gnucash "organization" with me as the admin and
Yawar
On Jan 2, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Yawar Amin wrote:
>
> Anyway, to end with a clear next action: John, would you be kind enough to
> create a ‘gnucash’ organization on GitHub and upload your repo there? I would
> like to clone it and try working on #634456.
>
OK, I've made a Gnucash "organization"
Hi Derek,
You have some good points. See below:
On 2011-01-02, at 20:56, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> […]
>
> I think it is premature to have a "canonical" git repository.
>
> […]
>
> HOWEVER
> until we, the set of developers, decide as a group to migrate to git we
> should not bless any tree as "t
Hi,
On Sun, January 2, 2011 8:46 pm, Yawar Amin wrote:
> On 2011-01-02, at 19:41, John Ralls wrote:
>
>>> [
]
>>>
>>> On another note, now that 2.4.0 is out, how do we feel about setting up
>>> an official Git repo, say git.gnucash.org? Or even an official GnuCash
>>> repo on GitHub/Gitorious/some
On 2011-01-02, at 19:41, John Ralls wrote:
>> […]
>>
>> On another note, now that 2.4.0 is out, how do we feel about setting up an
>> official Git repo, say git.gnucash.org? Or even an official GnuCash repo on
>> GitHub/Gitorious/something else.
>
> Not that I know of, but I'm willing to make
On Jan 2, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Does anyone have a public, maintained Git repo of the entire GnuCash source
> tree? I’m trying to set up an Ubuntu 10.10 build so I can tweak some stuff
> and try it out. I’d prefer not using git-svn to gulp down the entire svn
> history from the
Does anyone have a public, maintained Git repo of the entire GnuCash source
tree? I’m trying to set up an Ubuntu 10.10 build so I can tweak some stuff and
try it out. I’d prefer not using git-svn to gulp down the entire svn history
from the svn.gnucash.org server.
On another note, now that 2.4.
48 matches
Mail list logo
