tika-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Burch <apa...@gagravarr.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:33:01 GMT
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
> Git has something similar to svn:externals:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/571232/svnexternals-equivalent-in-git

Good to know

> I’ve seen both used in the same way. Also the examples site code
> is something we could always gin up a script solution to and isn’t
> a blocker by any means

Guess it depends on if we move the website over as well to git, or leave 
it as svn?

> As to the discussions of what’s going on with Git/Github/version
> control, etc., the use of writeable Git repositories at the ASF
> has been sanctioned and used pervasively for years. That Git/Github
> /version control *policy* discussion is pretty independent of using
> the ASF’s own sanctioned writeable git repos on ASF hardware, which
> is all I’m proposing to do.

I know it's allowed! I've just also seen lots of things about how it can 
be done wrong, either deliberately or accidently, and I don't want Tika 
having that issue too. I haven't used Git at the ASF enough to be sure 
what we should or shouldn't be doing, so I think having that written down 
by our git experts first would be good for everyone like me!

> Infra has put policies (temporarily) in place to deal with any of
> the branching issues that have shown up etc. So there is already
> enforcement and so on.

Once that's relaxed, we'll want our own rules about when, where and 
if-ever that's allowed, so everyone knows!

Additionally, on the github side, quite a few people currently have their 
own github mirrors of Tika with branches in that which aren't held in SVN. 
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to get a policy 
written down on when those need to be pushed into the ASF git master, what 
happens when they are etc

> Finally it seems like there is good support so far for this, so
> I’ll keep collecting feedback before calling an official vote maybe
> in the next few days. I’m really hoping there is really no big
> difference other than replacing svn co with git clone and replacing
> svn commit with git commit && git push in most places.

I agree, for simple stuff it should be a small change. It's the less 
simple stuff I'd rather we got right first, rather than doing wrong and 
having to unpick later! Especially as we bring in new committers, it's a 
lot easier if they can refer to somewhere to see our rules. (Even if it is 
a short wiki page that just says "don't" against a long list of things!)

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