bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Brownridge <>
Subject Re: git repo for new bloodhound core work
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2020 07:32:44 GMT
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
>, 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 <> 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]
>> [2]

View raw message