And if nobody steps up and "solves" the current technical issue will that simply accelerate the (desired) shift to using git as the main repo for future Lucene/Solr development? Would there be any downside to that outcome?
Is there any formal Apache policy for new projects as to whether they can use git exclusively? Any examples of Apache projects that moved from svn to git? +1 for moving to git (with full non-jar history) if after all of this time and hand-wringing "all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put git-svn back together again". I'd rather see Lucene/Solr committers focused on new feature development rather than doing Infra's job, and if Infra can't do it easily, why not shift to a solution that has much less downside and baggage and has a brighter future. -- Jack Krupansky On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone willing to lead this discussion to some kind of better resolution? > Did that whole back and forth help with any ideas on the best path forward? > I know it's a complicated issue, git / svn, the light side, the dark side, > but doesn't GitHub also depend on this mirroring? It's going to be super > annoying when I can no longer pull from a relatively up to date git remote. > > Who has boiled down the correct path? > > - Mark > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 6:07 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> FYI. >> >> - All of Lucene's SVN, incremental deltas, uncompressed: 5.0G >> - the above, tar.bz2: 1.2G >> >> Sadly, I didn't succeed at recreating a local SVN repo from those >> incremental dumps. svnadmin load fails with a cryptic error related to >> the fact that revision number of node-copy operations refer to >> original SVN numbers and they're apparently renumbered on import. >> svnadmin isn't smart enough to somehow keep a reference of those >> original numbers and svndumpfilter can't work with incremental dump >> files... A seemingly trivial task of splitting a repo on a clean >> boundary seems incredibly hard with SVN... >> >> If anybody wishes to play with the dump files, here they are: >> http://goo.gl/m6q3J8 >> >> Dawid >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > You can't avoid having the history in SVN. The ASF has one large repo, >> and >> > won't be deleting that repo, so the history will survive in perpetuity, >> > regardless of what we do now. >> > >> > Upayavira >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015, at 09:24 PM, Doug Turnbull wrote: >> > >> > It seems you'd want to preserve that history in a frozen/archiced >> Apache Svn >> > repo for Lucene. Then make the new git repo slimmer before switching. >> Folks >> > that want very old versions or doing research can at least go through >> the >> > original SVN repo. >> > >> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > One more thing, perhaps of importance, the raw Lucene repo contains >> > all the history of projects that then turned top-level (Nutch, >> > Mahout). These could also be dropped (or ignored) when converting to >> > git. If we agree JARs are not relevant, why should projects not >> > directly related to Lucene/ Solr be? >> > >> > Dawid >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Don’t know how much we have of historic jars in our history. >> >> >> >> I actually do know. Or will know. In about ~10 hours. I wrote a script >> >> that does the following: >> >> >> >> 1) git log all revisions touching >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene >> >> 2) grep revision numbers >> >> 3) use svnrdump to get every single commit (revision) above, in >> >> incremental mode. >> >> >> >> This will allow me to: >> >> >> >> 1) recreate only Lucene/ Solr SVN, locally. >> >> 2) measure the size of SVN repo. >> >> 3) measure the size of any conversion to git (even if it's one-by-one >> >> checkout, then-sync with git). >> >> >> >> From what I see up until now size should not be an issue at all. Even >> >> with all binary blobs so far the SVN incremental dumps measure ~3.7G >> >> (and I'm about 75% done). There is one interesting super-large commit, >> >> this one: >> >> >> >> svn log -r1240618 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> r1240618 | gsingers | 2012-02-04 22:45:17 +0100 (Sat, 04 Feb 2012) | 1 >> >> line >> >> >> >> LUCENE-2748: bring in old Lucene docs >> >> >> >> This commit diff weights... wait for it... 1.3G! I didn't check what >> >> it actually was. >> >> >> >> Will keep you posted. >> >> >> >> D. >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Doug Turnbull | Search Relevance Consultant | OpenSource Connections, >> LLC | >> > 240.476.9983 >> > Author:Relevant Search >> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be >> > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of >> > whether attachments are marked as such. >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> -- > - Mark > about.me/markrmiller >
