I think the simplest would be to migrate them all. Then we can forget all of that svn tree and mark it as read-only.
Gary On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Rob Tompkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 2019, at 4:08 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 03:53, Rob Tompkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> I’m curious if you saw my conversation with Chris Lambertus over in > INFRA about what to do with our SVN repos [1]? I’m not quite sure what to > do now that we have the vote [2], to move the repos over. It seems that > they want to “freeze” svn and make it read only in the migration. Do we > want to take everything under “proper,” and make it it’s own git repo (I > would think not). > > > > To clarify: every component/top-level directory under proper/ should > > have its own git repo - if it is migrated. > > +1. Yes I agree. > > > > >> I think we actually need to decide what the list is that we take > up….alas that may warrant another [VOTE] (we’ll see what INFRA says there). > So let’s see if we can draft that up (use “in” or “out” next to a component > that we think should be “in the move to gitbox): > >> > >> bcel/ - in > >> beanutils/ - in > >> bsf/ - in > >> chain/ - out > >> codec/ - in > >> commons-parent/ - in > >> commons-skin/ - out > >> commons-configuration/ - in > >> daemon/ - in > >> digester/ - in > >> email/ - in > >> exec/ - in > >> functor/ - in > >> jci/ - in > >> jcs/ - in > >> jelly/ - in > >> jexl/ - in > >> jxpath/ - in > >> logging/ - in (ugh) > >> net/ - in (ugh) > > > > What does (ugh) mean ? > > Pardon me there. I wish to retract my opinions over the antiquity of these > components. :-) > > -Rob > > > > >> ognl/ - in > >> proxy/ - out > >> validator/ - in > >> vfs/ - in > >> weaver/ - already done. > >> > >> Note. My audit was clearly incomplete as @MattBenson noticed that > weaver was already done. Please edit the list as you see fit, and then I > will try to take what we have with our previous [VOTE] to INFRA for > migration. If they want us to be more explicit about our desires, then I > will come back with an explicit proposal as opposed to the general one [2]. > >> > >> Also pardon if this seems overly officious, I’m just trying to adhere > to the apache rules as best I can. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -Rob > >> > >> [1] https://markmail.org/message/eevorsittlor3sez < > https://markmail.org/message/eevorsittlor3sez> > >> [2] https://markmail.org/message/5cqs3zxrr6dadj3n < > https://markmail.org/message/5cqs3zxrr6dadj3n> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
