inline

On Feb 23, 9:43 am, Roelof Blom <[email protected]> wrote:
> The 'problem' is twofold:
>
>    1. When we used svn we did this with svn:externals on the tools
>    directory:
>    *^/buildtools/NUnit/2.5.3/ NUnit
>    ^/buildtools/MSBuildCommunityTasks/r492/ MSBuildCommunityTasks*
>    This way you got get two folders named *NUnit* and *MSBuildCommunityTasks
>    *below the tools folder,
>    and you could reference these from scripts. Notice how both point to a
>    specific version (url really).
>    I am pretty sure Git cannot do this.
>

Not sure I understand... you *can* point a submodule to any commit you
want.

>    2. The other is the not-so-obvious 'git submodule init;git submodule
>    update', especially when you switch between branches
>    this is non-trivial and easy to forget. At least this is what I
>    understood from googling a bit, and the last section of
>    http://progit.org/book/ch6-6.html
>

Yes, but I think this is a very rare case... I don't think we will
have branches pointing to different commits of a submodule.

> In addition, to update a submodule reference over the projects you need to
> update (git checkout master, git pull, git push) on every submodule in every
> project because, unlike in svn, the head cannot be automatically tracked. I
> guess it's just as easy (easier?) to update that shared thing on all your
> local git clones and push them.
>
> With the projects being split there's no real story to keep all things equal
> for all projects, IMHO.

I agree. IMHO this is just like binary dependencies (i.e. each project
controls its own dependencies, including buildscripts).

So what do we do about buildtools? Submodule them? Copy them?

>
> -- Roelof.
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Mauricio Scheffer <
>
>
>
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > I didn't have any issues with the buildscripts submodule... what was
> > the problem with buildtools?
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:48 am, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Re the use of submodules, so how come we are using them for the
> > > buildscripts?
>
> > > Cheers
> > > John
>
> > > On Feb 22, 10:58 pm, Roelof Blom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Inline
>
> > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, John Simons <
> > [email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks guys, good links :)
>
> > > > > Re repositories on github, I've noticed we've added a submodule for
> > > > > the buildscripts to the already migrated projects, I was wondering if
> > > > > it makes also sense to add the buildtools(Nant, nunit, ....) as
> > > > > submodules so that we can just clone and build?
>
> > > > I've tried this but submodules work differently than svn:externals, and
> > come
> > > > with a whole share of problems, check this out:
> >http://progit.org/book/ch6-6.html
>
> > > > > Also, the following repositories can be deleted:
> > > > > Castle.Components.EmailSender
> > > > > Castle.Facilities.BatchRegistration
> > > > > Castle.Services.Logging
> > > > > Castle.Facilities.Cache
> > > > > Castle.Services.Transaction
>
> > > > Will do
>
> > > > > and finally, the presentation that Krzysztof  pointed me to
> > > > > mentions .gitignore file, should we add this file to each repository
> > > > > to exclude bin, obj,....?
>
> > > > Yup
>
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > John
>
> > > > > On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic (2) <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > John,
>
> > > > > > watch this presentation:
> > > > >http://jagregory.com/writings/git-e-van-recording/
>
> > > > > > very good stuff that will kickstart you into using git
>
> > > > > > On 22 Lut, 08:47, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Mauricio or Henry,
>
> > > > > > > Can I please have one of you migration "TemplateEngine
> > Component"?
> > > > > > > I would do it, but I have zero experience using git, so I feel
> > very
> > > > > > > nervous doing it!
>
> > > > > > > Also, can someone give me some pointers on what to install on my
> > > > > > > workstation? Do I install both msysgit (any specific
> > configuration or
> > > > > > > just use defaults when installing it) and tortoisegit? Any advice
> > is
> > > > > > > welcomed :)
>
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > John
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 20, 10:19 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > 10x
>
> > > > > > > > 2010/2/20 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>
>
> > > > > > > > > I can take care of MR too, if someone doesn't step in.
>
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Henry Conceição
>
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Ken Egozi <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > any chance someone might be able to do the history trick
> > for MR?
> > > > > > > > > > all of my spare OSS time is now consumed by performance
> > > > > improvements to
> > > > > > > > > > AspView, which I've been doing on my MR fork @ github (got
> > to
> > > > > love git
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > github). By now I managed to push a complex page with many,
> > > > > deeply nested
> > > > > > > > > > subviews, from about a  second down to the neighbourhood of
> > > > > 100ms.
> > > > > > > > > > apparently the code I initially transformed from the old
> > .boo
> > > > > code of
> > > > > > > > > brail,
> > > > > > > > > > plus the tons of naive changes I applied over the years,
> > was not
> > > > > too good
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Roelof Blom <
> > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Done.
> > > > > > > > > >> git://
>
> > github.com/castleproject/Castle.Facilities.AutomaticTransactionManagement.g 
> > it
>
> > > > > > > > > >> -- Roelof.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Henrik Feldt <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> :) When you’ve migrated it
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> From: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > Roelof
> > > > > > > > > Blom
> > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: den 19 februari 2010 21:25
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> To: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: So do we GIT now?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> huh?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Henrik Feldt <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Tell me updates as you go, please.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Cheers,
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Henrik
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> From: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > Roelof
> > > > > > > > > Blom
> > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: den 19 februari 2010 20:38
> > > > > > > > > >>> To: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: So do we GIT now?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I am currently working on moving the AutoTX facility.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> 2010/2/19 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Ok, so I'll continue to move some repos to github.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I'm planning to move all the facilties on the next days.
> > Is
> > > > > everybody
> > > > > > > > > >>> ok with that?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Henry Conceição
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:21 PM, John Simons <
> > > > > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Agree
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > On Feb 18, 5:19 am, Henry Conceição <
> > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> So, we all agree that one scm is better than two and
> > there
> > > > > is no
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> problem to have all the history and not only the
> > relevant
> > > > > part for
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> each repo?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> Henry Conceição
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Roelof Blom <
> > > > > [email protected]
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > Inline
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:24 AM, John Simons
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> Mauricio,
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> All very good points :)
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> Inline
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> Cheers
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> John
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> On Feb 16, 12:29 pm, Mauricio Scheffer <
> > > > > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> >  * It's simpler to have one SCM than two.
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> I agree, but I thought we were going to freeze svn
> > and
> > > > > make it
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> readonly, or is this not the plan?
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > Which thread was that decided on? I don't like the
> > idea of
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > two SCM's,
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > see the recent thread on the users list about APTCA
> > in
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > checkout
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > from the "wrong" svn project. Another reason not to
> > keep
> > > > > SVN is to
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > bring
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > down bandwith costs for Stronghold.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> >  * Browsing history is a big selling point of
> > git,
> > > > > since you
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> > all
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> > history locally there is no network overhead.
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> No problems with this except maybe as Roelof
> > pointed out
> > > > > "I
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> expected
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> >> to see only "relevant" commits" to the current
> > project.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > As I also pointed out this was my expectation, which
> > can
> > > > > be far
> > > > > > > > > off
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > reality
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > :-)
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > I'm with Mauricio on this. If all that history is
> > really
> > > > > annoying
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > the hell
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > out of somebody he can always do some magic with
> > > > > > > > > git-filter-branch.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > -- Roelof.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > --
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed
> > to
> > > > > the Google
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > Groups
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > "Castle Project Development List" group.
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > [email protected].
> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
> ...
>
> read more »

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

Reply via email to