Go go git! This this is a really good move as (re)learning SVN was a
little bit of a barrier to entry for me.
On 23/09/2020 03:53, Greg Stein wrote:
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
