bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: git repo for new bloodhound core work
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:53:31 GMT
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.


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]

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