How to signal that projects have moved to github
I'd like us to agree on how we're going to indicate in SVN that projects have been moved to github. Here's an opening bid: - Replace contents of trunk with a single file MOVED_TO_GITHUB containing the URL if the project page in github - Copy above file to root of project. - Make project read only An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :) Thoughts? There are a lot of other details of the migration that need to be worked out, like how folks should request migration and automating the conversion further. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:15:21AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like us to agree on how we're going to indicate in SVN that projects have been moved to github.
Here's an opening bid:
- Replace contents of trunk with a single file MOVED_TO_GITHUB containing the URL if the project page in github
- Copy above file to root of project.
- Make project read only
+1
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Maybe a bit draconian at this stage? This could perhaps be done much later in the migration by scripting the removal of all trunks with a MOVED_TO_GITHUB file.
Thoughts?
There are a lot of other details of the migration that need to be worked out, like how folks should request migration and automating the conversion further.
Jim
-- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- Brian Sutherland
I am in favor of removing the trunks. People who do not want to switch to git can still get the trunk by pinning to a specific revision. I run a CI tool and it is broken already because apparently a trunk has been deleted already. Thats not a bug, thats why I run the CI Tool. Would be stupid if I continue to test a trunk not in use. Best regards, Patrick On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
I'd like us to agree on how we're going to indicate in SVN that projects have been moved to github.
Here's an opening bid:
- Replace contents of trunk with a single file MOVED_TO_GITHUB containing the URL if the project page in github
- Copy above file to root of project.
- Make project read only
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Thoughts?
There are a lot of other details of the migration that need to be worked out, like how folks should request migration and automating the conversion further.
Jim
-- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/10/2013 10:42 AM, Patrick Gerken wrote:
I am in favor of removing the trunks. People who do not want to switch to git can still get the trunk by pinning to a specific revision. I run a CI tool and it is broken already because apparently a trunk has been deleted already. Thats not a bug, thats why I run the CI Tool. Would be stupid if I continue to test a trunk not in use.
It isn't just CI: people may have projects running from SVN checkouts, which we break without warning (the Plone devs have been notorious for causing such breakage for years). Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlDu9DUACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4vpACeP5Tt0m8MkbK/cAOPynlHMerf N4gAnA2ULgxdeGwq81jvlGYuV59NGmdc =FiLH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/10/2013 10:42 AM, Patrick Gerken wrote:
I am in favor of removing the trunks. People who do not want to switch to git can still get the trunk by pinning to a specific revision. I run a CI tool and it is broken already because apparently a trunk has been deleted already. Thats not a bug, thats why I run the CI Tool. Would be stupid if I continue to test a trunk not in use.
It isn't just CI: people may have projects running from SVN checkouts, which we break without warning (the Plone devs have been notorious for causing such breakage for years).
I still think breakage is better. If they're using trunk, without pinning a revision, it must be because they want the latest code. They won't get that from svn. This is a case where I think it's better to fail in an obvious way. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
On 10/01/2013 20:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
It isn't just CI: people may have projects running from SVN checkouts, which we break without warning (the Plone devs have been notorious for causing such breakage for years).
I still think breakage is better. If they're using trunk, without pinning a revision, it must be because they want the latest code. They won't get that from svn. This is a case where I think it's better to fail in an obvious way.
Yeah, +1 from me here. If people think they're using trunk, and they're not 'cos its moved to GitHub, that's bad. FWIW, you may not know that GitHub really does have an svn interface to git repositories on GitHub. They unfortunately announced this on April 1 one year, so I think most people (myself included, until I actually started using it) assume it's a joke. So, it really is a case of CI tools changing their subversion url, and others doing a svn switch --relocate. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/10/2013 09:15 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like us to agree on how we're going to indicate in SVN that projects have been moved to github.
Here's an opening bid:
- Replace contents of trunk with a single file MOVED_TO_GITHUB containing the URL if the project page in github
- Copy above file to root of project.
- Make project read only
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Thoughts?
There are a lot of other details of the migration that need to be worked out, like how folks should request migration and automating the conversion further.
I would be happy to add the 'MOVED-TO-GITHUB.txt' files to the SVN projects for the 'zope.*' packages I have already migrated. I need to have the readonly restriction relaxed, first/ Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlDu8+UACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ78tACg0RqCvxRd269YKdcT+shih/5s y/EAn1aO1PUQamqH4sJaMVgBKH2xK2LP =YRxy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:15:21AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like us to agree on how we're going to indicate in SVN that projects have been moved to github.
Here's an opening bid:
- Replace contents of trunk with a single file MOVED_TO_GITHUB containing the URL if the project page in github
- Copy above file to root of project.
- Make project read only
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Thoughts?
+1 Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3/BlueBream consulting and development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/10/2013 03:16 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:15:21AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Thoughts?
+1
Feeling ambiguoous today, or maybe not? Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlDvQpUACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5GCACdHHdDouYMufXolF2yNPfsgA6d b90An29nE88UOeLO3RXIoYEULp2C1Qge =Mffi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:37:09PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
On 01/10/2013 03:16 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:15:21AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
An argument against cleaning out trunk will break CI tools. This is also an argument *for* cleaning out trunk. :)
Thoughts?
+1
Feeling ambiguoous today, or maybe not?
Eh. :-) An explicit +1 for svn rm .../trunk/*; svn add .../trunk/MOVED_TO_GITHUB.txt Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3/BlueBream consulting and development
participants (6)
-
Brian Sutherland -
Chris Withers -
Jim Fulton -
Marius Gedminas -
Patrick Gerken -
Tres Seaver