OK, more than enough delay I think. I'll create the new repo as 'bloodhound-core', leaving the notifications as their defaults which will mean github related update emails going to this list. As with most choices I expect they will not be difficult to change.
Then I'll look at pushing just our current code over to the new main branch. On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, at 12:47 PM, Gary Martin wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, at 12:11 PM, John Chambers wrote: > > 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. > > Cool :) > > > 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? > > Yeah, the current situation may well be confusing. > > I don't think that there is much we can do with repo naming to help > this if we don't want names to get too complicated. README.md files > being updated to refer to the changes once the dust settles on some of > these decisions may well be appropriate though. > > I think I am willing to let a bit of confusion live on for the short > term as long as we are fairly clear about what is going on in this > list. If we can resolve this within a week or two, that would probably > be a good result. > > We may need to wait a short while if we want to update our old > bloodhound instance with this information as there is a bit of work > going on with it at the moment. > > > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Gary -- Cheers, Gary
