bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Chambers <cham...@apache.org>
Subject Re: git repo for new bloodhound core work
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:11:05 GMT
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.
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?

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
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message