openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damjan Jovanovic <>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Switch to Git?
Date Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:30:59 GMT
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Herbert Duerr <> wrote:

> On 09/17/2017 04:04 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > On 14/09/2017 Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> does SVN vs. GIT prevent new developers from volunteering?
> >
> > I think this is the key question, even though there are many good points
> > also in what others replied.
> >
> > We currently have a couple semi-official GIT mirrors: one on Github in
> > the ASF organization page and the internal one Herbert pointed out. I
> > also remember that Herbert once presented a big GIT repository he had
> > built with all the available history of the OpenOffice code, but I don't
> > know if it is available somewhere.
> I had that 2GB blob on my Apache homepage for a couple of years. When
> that home was migrated to the newer locations it was apparently dropped.
> Unless someone mirrored the blob it is currently not available anymore.
> If anyone is really interested in that ancient history I can probably
> resurrect it unless 2+GB blobs are no longer allowed in committer's home
> directories.
That would be great. I need the old repository to regression test an old
bug in Base. However, is it legal to have commits from the pre-ASLv2 era?

> > I believe that the interested developers (including me, at times) use
> > the git-svn tool when convenient. I think that this is enough to allow
> > the local workflow improvements Damjan was requesting. Or do you see
> > reasons not to use it?
> OpenOffice is only a small part of the Apache subversion repository that
> contains many more projects. Most revisions in that repo are not for OOo
> and git-svn apparently has a hard time with this. It is possible but not
> much fun.
Excellent insight. Never thought of that. git-svn is almost unusable then.

> > As for the new developers, most new developers are probably familiar
> > with the "pull request" convention. This is not supported by either of
> > the current repositories, mostly due to ASF policy. Last time I checked,
> > Infra was still discussing how we can allow pull requests in a way that
> > complies with the policy and I have no idea whether this is resolved.
> > Once we have official support from Infra and a friendly pull request
> > system, this might indeed improve the approach for new developers.
> Agreed. The workflow with pull request is so much nicer than handling
> patches...
> Best regards,
> Herbert

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