Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 20:39 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > Yes, there are a couple of more things, and I have a script lying > > around somewhere from the last big git migration that I went > through.  > > Robert, can you share your script? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-3987 >

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

May be its just me - But I find current setup of Sling and git svn on client just fine for my usage and working in this project. So do not see a compelling reason for switch with all the changes involved. Intention is not to discourage other from trying - Just want to mention my thoughts :)

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Friday 26 February 2016 08:59:02 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Oliver Lietz wrote > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-3987 > > > > I think we already have consensus on having one repo per module if we use > > Git. > Ah great :) > > How would we do the Jenkins setup? One Jenkins job

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

Oliver Lietz wrote > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-3987 > > I think we already have consensus on having one repo per module if we use Git. > Ah great :) How would we do the Jenkins setup? One Jenkins job per module? Which I think would be way better than what we have today:

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 22:20:10 Robert Munteanu wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 14:43 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 14:59:46 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 10:54 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:26:24

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 22:22:01 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > We had a very long back and forth discussion on the Felix mailing list > about moving to git - main point being whether to go for a single git > repo or one git repo per module or a faulty compromise in between. > Which then let to

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > ...but before doing anything in > that direction, we should be clear that we all agree on what the end > result would be: a git repo per module Agreed. -Bertrand

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

We had a very long back and forth discussion on the Felix mailing list about moving to git - main point being whether to go for a single git repo or one git repo per module or a faulty compromise in between. Which then let to the interesting discussion about what the real problem a move to git

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 14:43 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 14:59:46 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 10:54 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:26:24 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24,

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 14:59:46 Robert Munteanu wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 10:54 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:26:24 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Oliver Lietz > > de> > > > > wrote: > > > >

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 10:54 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:26:24 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Oliver Lietz > de>  > wrote: > > > > > > > > ...We do have roughly 250 modules (and counting) in SVN and I

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:26:24 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > ...We do have roughly 250 modules (and counting) in SVN and I don't think > > we can switch at once... > > We can, if we use a computer ;-) > >

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 10:15:32 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Oliver Lietz wrote > > >> We can move it to contrib for the time being > > > > Well, there was a discussion at dev@felix some months ago about moving to > > Git successively and using one Git repo per module. I'm not sure what's >

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Oliver Lietz wrote: > ...We do have roughly 250 modules (and counting) in SVN and I don't think we > can > switch at once... We can, if we use a computer ;-) If we decide to move to Git we might first reorganize modules and poms as

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

Oliver Lietz wrote >> >> We can move it to contrib for the time being > > Well, there was a discussion at dev@felix some months ago about moving to Git > successively and using one Git repo per module. I'm not sure what's the > current state there (@Benson: can you tell us?), but in my opinion

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Wednesday 24 February 2016 09:51:09 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > ...If you agree I would file an issue at infra and start moving > > jackrabbit-server to Git... > > So we'd have some modules on Git and

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

Hi, On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Oliver Lietz wrote: > ...If you agree I would file an issue at infra and start moving > jackrabbit-server > to Git... So we'd have some modules on Git and the rest in svn? I don't think it's a good idea. Moving to Git why not but we

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Monday 22 February 2016 18:39:23 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >> Oliver Lietz wrote > >> > >>> as we do no longer support Jackrabbit shouldn't we move > >>> jackrabbit-server to

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Carsten Ziegeler > wrote: >> Oliver Lietz wrote >>> as we do no longer support Jackrabbit shouldn't we move jackrabbit-server to >>> attic or contrib or simply remove it from SVN? >> >> Very good point, +1 -

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Oliver Lietz wrote >> as we do no longer support Jackrabbit shouldn't we move jackrabbit-server to >> attic or contrib or simply remove it from SVN? > > Very good point, +1 - let's remove it. ... I would prefer

Re: jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

Oliver Lietz wrote > > as we do no longer support Jackrabbit shouldn't we move jackrabbit-server to > attic or contrib or simply remove it from SVN? Very good point, +1 - let's remove it. Carsten > > If we do we can straighten it-jackrabbit-oak which fails right now with > latest >

jackrabbit-server [Re: svn commit: r1731592 - /sling/trunk/bundles/jcr/jackrabbit-server/pom.xml]

On Monday 22 February 2016 05:54:51 cziege...@apache.org wrote: > Author: cziegeler > Date: Mon Feb 22 05:54:51 2016 > New Revision: 1731592 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1731592=rev > Log: > Use latst jcr.base snapshot > > Modified: >