Err, I'd maybe hold up until tomorrow and give other folks a chance to chime in, the below was only one persons opinion hehe.
When I say 'now' vs 'later' I just meant the immediate term verus months from now. I dont think its that big a deal that it has to happen *right now* :) Robbie On 22 May 2015 at 00:30, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I won't even wait for other people's feedback... I will just go > ahead and ask them to do it. Better now than later. > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Robbie Gemmell > <[email protected]> wrote: >> As the JIRA project has just been renamed today and no release has >> occurred yet, I think now would probably be the best time to ever >> recreate the mirror. >> >> I dont think the pull requests numbers beginning again is that big an >> issue. The comments are available on the dev list as you said, and >> also any JIRAs the PR referenced, plus the commits made will remain >> for inspection. There will obviously be some overlap with the old >> numbers, but I dont think that should be too confusing as the dates >> will make it fairly easy to tell whether it is a current reference or >> an old one, plus any JIRA references will further help distinguish >> them (given the old PR commits would refer to the old ACTIVEMQ6 JIRA >> key, rather than the new ARTEMIS key). >> >> One other issue to note is that I believe forks of the current GitHub >> mirror will be re-parented against one of the remaining fork, so >> people might need to recreate their forks against the main repo again. >> I dont see that as too big a deal either though, and again better done >> now than later. >> >> Robbie >> >> On 21 May 2015 at 22:42, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I need some help with the discussion I'm having at: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9543 >>> >>> >>> >>> If you go to the artemis github mirror, you will see: mirrored from >>> git://git.apache.org/activemq-6.git >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis >>> >>> >>> >>> It happens that per what I heard from Infra, the only way to do that >>> would be to recreate the repo. Meaning the Pull Request IDs would >>> restart, meaning we would lost any previous discussions we had on >>> github. >>> >>> >>> Although I'm not sure that's really a big deal, since these >>> discussions are all backed up at the dev list (the dev list has been >>> hearing the PR comments). >>> >>> >>> So, is there anyone against recreating the repo? >>> >>> >>> I asked Infra to wait until tomorrow. > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
