openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: (was: Building a single Hg repository)
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:35:21 GMT
Am 07/05/2011 10:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Mathias Bauer<>  wrote:
>> On 05.07.2011 18:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>> It seems that my memory had fooled me: so if anybody can create an svn
>>> dump file, I will try to recap what we have agreed to so far and have a
>>> look into the conversion. In case anyone else is already at this, please
>>> let me know.
>> Having said that, there's a thought that makes me wonder: we have 117
>> cws with more or less unfinished work. I doubt that we will integrate
>> them all anytime soon, as integration also comprises developing the
>> merged code further until it has sufficient quality for becoming part of
>> the trunk. [Wat is "sufficient" is still undefined - we surely won't
>> continue the overdone QA approval process from the "old" OOo project,
>> but OTOH also shouldn't throw code at the repository at will.]
>> Some of the 117 cws are anbandoned work, others are work in an early
>> state that most probably doesn't make sense to be continued without the
>> developers starting it.
>> Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that will never be used?
>> The alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review.
> Right.  That is why I was thinking that maybe we just create an
> archival copy of the entire repository, including all CWS, and host
> that as a read only Hg or git instance.  Then migrate the trunk to
> SVN,   If there are some CWS that we know are already approved for
> 3.4, then include those as well.
> That way, if someone does come by, months later, and decide they want
> to complete work CWS, then they can still clone them and work on them.
>   But then they would need to copy them into a SVN working copy, and
> merge and commit from there.  Obviously, this does complicate things
> for the future CWS developers.  But they are in the best position to
> stabilize and merge their work.

OK, to keep the code in a special branch in our new the Apache SVN repo 
or in a separated one as archive. For me it seems to be the same: Keep 
instead of delete.


View raw message