I've sent Nicolas a copy of the user map file. Only difference is I changed Charlie's email address to [email protected] since he is concerned about spam bots. I've updated your Google docs file as well.
I am fairly certain all the remaining unmapped handles are former SSL employees (summer hires, etc.) and would all be defunct email addresses anyways. ----- Rom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rom Walton Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:49 AM To: Oliver Bock Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] Git Migration By their very nature, the workspaces concept is useless in a DVCS environment. I could see the various workspaces be considered branches off of master and then deleted for the final product. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure it really matters. The only branches that are important at this stage of the game are master, 6.8, and 7.0a. So many of the earlier branches and tags wouldn't build properly because of the missing binaries or CVS corruption. I don't think we should stress too much about orphaned nodes. I guess I would view the acid test as to whether 'blame' works on 6.8, 7.0a, and trunk. If so the tree is in good enough shape. I'll check out the boinctaskbar.cpp file which we brought in a change from DavidB's workspace and see if it causes problems in boinccleaned.git. > Did you test/compare both approaches? >From what I could tell the SVN meta data in the comments section were different. You guys are the experts. :) I want to get this wrapped up. ----- Rom -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Bock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:19 AM To: Rom Walton Cc: [email protected]; David Anderson (BOINC) Subject: Re: Git Migration On 7/26/12 18:59 , Rom Walton wrote: > Which of the two baselines should we be considering our Git central > repository on? Not easy to tell since I haven't had the time to have closer look at Nicholas' approach and results. I used the proven standard approach while Nicolas used a fairly new tool. That doesn't necessarily mean anything about the result of course... I think my approach covers all requirements and I responded to all comments made so far. The only potentially missing thing is the integration of the personal workspaces Nicolas asked for. I asked you and David for your opinion but haven't got any response so far. If that is vital to the migration (and can't be done in separate repos like boinc-alpha) I think we have to use Nicolas' conversion, if not I think mine is probably safer. > Basically both baselines have the basics, Nicolas went a little too > extreme on removing precompiled binaries and his current demo tree > broke the -test_app functionality for make_project. It also appears > it didn't take Nicolas very long to migrate it all so stuff like that can be fixed. How about user mapping? Has this been completed by now? > which tool did a better job? Did you test/compare both approaches? Did anyone apart from Nicolas and me (probably Charlie) test anything? The ML is almost completely silent about this. Best, Oliver _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
