bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary <>
Subject Re: git repo for new bloodhound core work
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:15:58 GMT
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, at 3:53 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> How about just "bloodhound-core" ... the"bh" in "bhcore" seems redundant.

I'm happy with that suggestion.

> 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.

That is an interesting option. I suppose I would just like to make progress for now so, although
there might be a bit of confusion at some point, perhaps we can keep that in our back pocket
for a while longer.

> 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).

Thanks for the warning - I can't be sure if I would have got it wrong at this point but I
would hope that I would have followed the advice to `MAKE SURE THE NOTIFICATION LIST AND REPO

Talking of which, are we happy for github notifications to go to this list? I am not clear
on whether it will seem obnoxious to others.

> 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.

I suspect I know how you feel. I try to stay agnostic for my part but the git alternative
should reduce barriers.

> 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