On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:28:13AM +0000, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > On 28/03/13 06:35, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:46:49AM +0100, Roland Siegbert wrote: > >> On 03/27/2013 10:40 PM, Anders Logg wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:23:53PM +0000, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > >>>> On 26/03/13 22:32, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>> Yes, I still haven't found a satisfactory solution that is safe in all > >>>> cases. The only safe solution I can think of at the moment is: > >>>> 1) bzr -> git convert trunk with export of marks files > >>>> 2) import *all* feature branches > >>>> 3) filter the entire history, removing files we don't want > >>>> 4) archive the new git repo with *all* branches on the fenics > >>>> webserver with public read-only access > >>>> 5) push only the master branch (bzr trunk) to bitbucket > >>>> 6) instruct people how they can fetch their feature branches into > >>>> their own (local) clones and then push to their own forks > >>> > >>> What exactly does it mean to import all branches? Will it somehow > >>> affect repository that we put on bitbucket? > >> It will include all branches directly instead of splitting it in a two > >> step procedure with the filtering in between the two steps. As far, as I > >> understood the discussion, that's a better solution than filtering the > >> trunk/master branch - to get rid of the obsolete files - and attach the > >> branches afterwards using some kind of yet unknown git voodoo. > > > > It still seems very strange to import all branches, considering most > > of them will likely never be merged and perhaps only a couple of them > > are ready for merge. > > I wasn't suggesting that: see 4) and 5) above: the repo with all > branches is only for archiving on the FEniCS web server. Only master > (formerly trunk) will be pushed to BitBucket. And if someone comes back > in 2 years and wants to continue working on their feature branch, we > point them to 6).
I think if they come back in 2 years, we should instruct them to start from scratch. > >>>> I've asked a question on SO, maybe someone has an idea: > >>>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/15660467/396967 > >> > >> I suggest like the following as a first draft for the conversion script: > > That is pretty much exactly what my import-branch script does :) > > >> <code> > >> mkdir dolfin.git > >> cd dolfin.git > >> git init --bare > >> > >> bzr fast-export --export-marks=../marks.bzr ~/src/dolfin/master \ > >> | git fast-import --export-marks=../marks.git > >> > >> <repeat n-branches-times:> > >> bzr fast-export --marks=../marks.bzr --git-branch=<branchname> \ > >> ~/src/dolfin/<branchname> | git fast-import \ > >> --import-marks=../marks.git --export-marks=../marks.git > >> <endrepeat> > >> > >> #As soon as this is done: Filter the history as planned, test it and > >> then upload it to the new location: > >> > >> git remote add <bitbucket repolocation> > >> git push --all # push all branches > >> </code> > > > > That would create a repository on bitbucket containing all the > > branches. I don't see why we should push anything but trunk. > > Yes, I agree, only trunk should go to BitBucket. Replace the final 2 > lines by: > > rsync -a . fenicsproject.org:/path/to/archive/dolfin.git > git remote add origin g...@bitbucket.org:fenics-project/dolfin.git > git push origin master > > And repeat the process for all the other FEniCS components... ok. > > And still no one with a feature branch has claimed that it would be a > > problem to start with a fresh clone. The only thing we would lose > > would be the history of the feature branches. > > That might be because they're not reading this list and aren't even > aware of the migration plans. Perhaps... -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
