I think using git for the new work is a great idea and I agree with Greg that 'bloodhound-core' seems a more sensible name. Though I am wondering if we need to make it obvious that this repository is for a different version than what is currently held in the svn repo?
Cheers John On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 08:32, Daniel Brownridge <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> >
