bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Martin" <gary.mar...@physics.org>
Subject Re: git repo for new bloodhound core work
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:53:52 GMT
OK, more than enough delay I think.

I'll create the new repo as 'bloodhound-core', leaving the notifications as their defaults
which will mean github related update emails going to this list. As with most choices I expect
they will not be difficult to change.

Then I'll look at pushing just our current code over to the new main branch.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, at 12:47 PM, Gary Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, at 12:11 PM, John Chambers wrote:
> > I think using git for the new work is a great idea and I agree with Greg
> > that 'bloodhound-core' seems a more sensible name.
> 
> Cool :)
> 
> > Though I am wondering if we need to make it obvious that this repository is
> > for a different version than what is currently held in the svn repo?
> 
> Yeah, the current situation may well be confusing.
> 
> I don't think that there is much we can do with repo naming to help 
> this if we don't want names to get too complicated. README.md files 
> being updated to refer to the changes once the dust settles on some of 
> these decisions may well be appropriate though.
> 
> I think I am willing to let a bit of confusion live on for the short 
> term as long as we are fairly clear about what is going on in this 
> list. If we can resolve this within a week or two, that would probably 
> be a good result.
> 
> We may need to wait a short while if we want to update our old 
> bloodhound instance with this information as there is a bit of work 
> going on with it at the moment.
> 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 08:32, Daniel Brownridge <daniel.brownridge@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Go go git! This this is a really good move as (re)learning SVN was a
> > > little bit of a barrier to entry for me.
> > >
> > > On 23/09/2020 03:53, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > How about just "bloodhound-core" ... the"bh" in "bhcore" seems redundant.
> > > >
> > > > Note that we could also ask Infra to perform some "magic" like renaming
> > > > "bloodhound" to "bloodhound-archive" or such, and then make use of
> > > > "bloodhound" going forward.
> > > >
> > > > Note that requesting a new git repository is available via
> > > > selfserve.apache.org, and I'd just note to be careful to check the
> > > answer,
> > > > and avoiding creating bloodhound-bloodhound-blah. That used to be a
> > > common
> > > > mistake (not sure if the code warns you nowadays).
> > > >
> > > > In any case, +1 for going ahead and switching to git, even though I'm
an
> > > > svn partisan. The advantages are much higher than any negatives.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > -g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM Gary Martin <gary.martin@physics.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Judging by previous conversations long past (e.g. [1], [2]) I believe
I
> > > >> effectively have a mandate to switch to using git for at least some
of
> > > our
> > > >> work and so I think we may as well try this out with the experimental
> > > >> 'core' bloodhound stuff and see how we got from there.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am not expecting to migrate any old bloodhound work to any new git
> > > repo
> > > >> - any legacy work can stay in the subversion repo for any ongoing
> > > >> maintenance. Also, I am not intending to drop any of our other current
> > > >> usages of subversion, be they public or private so, for instance,
the
> > > >> "site" pages can remain there for now as I don't see as big advantages
> > > in
> > > >> moving these things for the moment.
> > > >>
> > > >>  From my point of view, I have been working with git more than
> > > subversion
> > > >> long enough that I am finding it a lot more difficult to work with.
> > > Trying
> > > >> to use git-svn doesn't feel a good enough solution for this,
> > > particularly
> > > >> at clone time. Maybe there are other solutions but I am not sure it
is
> > > >> worth putting in more effort to work them out.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, unless there are any big objections, I will be looking to get
this
> > > >> done today. As there is already a bloodhound mirror of sorts on github
> > > with
> > > >> the bloodhound name, I will be calling the new repo
> > > >>
> > > >>      "bloodhound-bhcore"
> > > >>
> > > >> This name obviously gives an impression that there will be multiple
> > > repos
> > > >> associated with the new bloodhound. If anyone cares to change my mind
on
> > > >> this naming, I think the `bloodhound-` prefix is sensible and certainly
> > > >> consistent with all other apache projects I have spotted so it will
> > > just be
> > > >> a question of whether there is a better "subname."
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>      Gary
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e2ce321621205b7131047e21c776ffcacd8516ecbac70ea2f665d761%40%3Cdev.bloodhound.apache.org%3E
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c3956214bd35ff57526d7e63fac86e2613499f6fc473275345ee6b61%40%3Cdev.bloodhound.apache.org%3E
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
>     Gary

-- 
Cheers,
    Gary

Mime
View raw message