How about just "bloodhound-core" ... the"bh" in "bhcore" seems redundant.
Note that we could also ask Infra to perform some "magic" like renaming "bloodhound" to "bloodhound-archive" or such, and then make use of "bloodhound" going forward. Note that requesting a new git repository is available via selfserve.apache.org, and I'd just note to be careful to check the answer, and avoiding creating bloodhound-bloodhound-blah. That used to be a common mistake (not sure if the code warns you nowadays). In any case, +1 for going ahead and switching to git, even though I'm an svn partisan. The advantages are much higher than any negatives. Cheers, -g On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Judging by previous conversations long past (e.g. [1], [2]) I believe I > effectively have a mandate to switch to using git for at least some of our > work and so I think we may as well try this out with the experimental > 'core' bloodhound stuff and see how we got from there. > > I am not expecting to migrate any old bloodhound work to any new git repo > - any legacy work can stay in the subversion repo for any ongoing > maintenance. Also, I am not intending to drop any of our other current > usages of subversion, be they public or private so, for instance, the > "site" pages can remain there for now as I don't see as big advantages in > moving these things for the moment. > > From my point of view, I have been working with git more than subversion > long enough that I am finding it a lot more difficult to work with. Trying > to use git-svn doesn't feel a good enough solution for this, particularly > at clone time. Maybe there are other solutions but I am not sure it is > worth putting in more effort to work them out. > > So, unless there are any big objections, I will be looking to get this > done today. As there is already a bloodhound mirror of sorts on github with > the bloodhound name, I will be calling the new repo > > "bloodhound-bhcore" > > This name obviously gives an impression that there will be multiple repos > associated with the new bloodhound. If anyone cares to change my mind on > this naming, I think the `bloodhound-` prefix is sensible and certainly > consistent with all other apache projects I have spotted so it will just be > a question of whether there is a better "subname." > > Cheers, > Gary > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e2ce321621205b7131047e21c776ffcacd8516ecbac70ea2f665d761%40%3Cdev.bloodhound.apache.org%3E > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c3956214bd35ff57526d7e63fac86e2613499f6fc473275345ee6b61%40%3Cdev.bloodhound.apache.org%3E >
