Thanks Gary. Great work. I just cloned the new repo in Git. For now I see that we only have the master branch that you have ported. Is it a good idea to create a new develop branch for the dev work?
Thanks, Dammina On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 06:53, John Chambers <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice work. > Will try and make time tomorrow to clone the new repo. > > Cheers > > John > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020, 18:54 Gary Martin, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > >
