I just cloned and checked out some of the tags and branches from
cxf-test. I think it looks pretty good now.
Should we do an official vote about the switch or can we already
consider this discussion a consensus?
The other question is when to switch. I am in no hurry to do so. From my
side after the 3.0.0-m2 sounds like a good date. It there anything I can
help with? Perhaps coordinate with infra or do you want to do this Dan?
Christian
On 24.01.2014 15:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Thorsten Höger <[email protected]> wrote:
Some comments after playing around with the test repo:
- I can only see branches for 2.5.x, 2.6.x and 2.7.x. but 2.4 and before are
missing
Since we are not maintaining those versions anymore, there is no point in
keeping the branches around. Really, the 2.5.x should go as well. If we
ever do need to “fix” anything, we can create branches off the appropriate tag.
,
- there are no tags for released versions
That was my fault. Forgot to add “—tags” to the git push. Keep forgetting
that the push/pull doesn’t do the tags as well. :-(
I just pushed them. 70 release tags. Wow. :-)
- maybe trunk should be renamed to master (git-style)
Yea. When we go “live”, we’d definitely do that. This is just an experiment
at this point to make sure we can create a new git repo that is a bit better
than the pure svn dump version we’ve been using.
Dan
Am 23.01.2014 19:05, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
2) I’d LIKE to rebuild the git repo and possibly remove all the /incubator
revisions and tags. Kind of “start” at the graduation. Maybe a bit before at
the 2.0-incubator release. Or at least all the “lib” dirs out of them. That
would chop about 100MB out of the .git directory making it a LOT smaller. The
original codebase kept .jar files in the repo which sucks with git. I’m
really not sure how much of the history and tags from 2005/2006 is at all
important anymore so this is likely not a big deal. Plus, the history is
still in SVN if we really need it.
I played with this a little bit last night. If I use the commit where we did the
“maven release:prepare” for 2.1 (first major release out of the incubator) as the
base for a graft point and removed the 2.0.x tags and branches (they’ll still
exist in SVN if we ever need them) and the “celtix” tag from prior to doing the
changes from celtix -> CXF, and then do a:
git filter-branch --prune-empty --tag-name-filter cat -- --all
(takes a couple hours to run)
to clean up the branches and remove all the “empty commits” which are created
when the svn properties are updated for the merges and such, the “.git” dir
drops from about 150MB down to 51MB. Also, the “git log 2.7.x-fixes” looks
better without all the “blocked XYX” commits and such. If created a test
repo at my github account:
https://github.com/dkulp/cxf-test
if you want to clone it and take a look at the various branches and tags and
such.
If we decide to move to git (which I don’t see any objections so far), I would
propose that we use that process as the starting point for the official git
repo instead of taking the full svn dump version we have right now on the
mirror. It’s a bit smaller and cleaner.
The downside is for the files that have existed since 2.1, a “git blame” and
log and such will only go back to 2.1. Blame will list me as the person for
any lines that have existed since 2.1 (since I did the “release:prepare” for
2.1 and all the commits prior to that are squashed up into there). We could
go back a little further than 2.1 if we feel it’s overly important. Or, we
could even move up to 2.2 or later if we feel it’s not at all important. :-)
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
