Hi all,
just some thoughts about some points you've made:
> b) Fixing internal links inside commit messages ("grafted from ...", "fixes
> error introduced in commit ...")
Maybe I've forgot something crucial but doing something like
for branch in $(hg branches | awk '{print $1}'); do
hg update -C $branch > /dev/null
echo "$branch $(hg log -v | egrep "bitbucket.org" | wc -l)"
done
gives me
Branch Links
------ ------
default 9
3.3 9
3.2 9
find-module-imported-target 9
fix_cuda_clang 9
CUDA_9.0 9
patch-1 9
3.1 9
3.0 9
2.0 9
If we also consider closed branches (what we probably should) I also get 9
links (using hg branches -c). A short manual look at the links shows that they
are all the same 9 (remains to be checked!). That said this is something we can
easily fix manually.
Another point are links inside the codebase that point to bitbucket.
Following the same logic as above I use
hg grep "bitbucket.org"
and get 11 links (all seem to be the same). Again something fixable manually.
> c) Fixing external links to the repository. Most notably, any links from our
> bugtracker will eventually fail (even if we stayed with bitbucket, the hashes
> won't match). I doubt that we could set up any automatic forwarding for that.
This might be by far the most complicated point since a lot (the majority?) of
all issues contain links to commits. If desired I can find a concrete number
but I doubt that it will be very...motivating. I also doubt that Bitbucket will
provide any functionality to redirect links to other Git providers but I could
image that there could be some workaround if we decide to migrate to Bitbucket
Git. Something we should keep in mind before choosing a new provider.
> Any third-party which relies on our main repository will need to change as
> well (not directly "our" problem, but we need to give a reasonable amount of
> time for everyone to migrate to whatever will be our future official
> repository).
It's currently unclear for me what exactly will happen with the hg repo but I
guess it will be archived or something similar. In this case we can link to the
new repo on the README page. I don't have any further ideas regarding this but
also think we should migrate somewhat fast.
> I see essentially three options:
> 1. Migrate to another mercurial provider
> 2. Convert to git, stay at bitbucket
> 3. Convert to git, migrate to another provider
1. We could migrate to Tuxfamily and keep mercurial. As you said this would
imply we have to handle pull requests separately which is possible. As you
surly know LLVM does exactly that by using Phabricator. However this would fix
some of the issues above but links to bitbucket would remain a problem. Another
downside of mercurial is that only very few projects are using it and
contributing would be much easier in the case of git.
2. The only reason I see for this is the one I mentioned above: If there is (or
will be) any support to redirect bitbucket links it will most likely only work
if we stay at bitbucket. Compared with other code hosting services I find
bitbucket (not mercurial) to be really complicated and not intuitive.
3. In an ideal world this would be my absolute preference (not very
surprising). Regarding the choice of a service I want to make the personal
point that I would rather migrate to Gitlab than to Github because it is as
least as good as Github and I think that diversity of tools and providers is
crucial for open source. In the long run we could even think about migrating
issues to Gitlab and installing test runners (this is another story).
Thanks,
David
> On 21. Aug 2019, at 14:53, Christoph Hertzberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Eigen users and contributers!
>
> As some may have noticed, bitbucket/atlassian is "sunsetting" its mercurial
> support:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket
>
> If they stick to their timeline, we will have to migrate until June 1st,
> 2020. That means we still have time, but if we do nothing, things will break
> ...
>
>
> Converting the repository itself to git should not be a bigger issue -- and
> if we do this we could as well migrate to a more mainstream provider (i.e.,
> github).
>
> I think the main problems for migration are:
> a) Migrating open pull-requests (for historical reasons, the closed/merged
> ones should probably be archived as well)
> b) Fixing internal links inside commit messages ("grafted from ...", "fixes
> error introduced in commit ...")
> c) Fixing external links to the repository. Most notably, any links from our
> bugtracker will eventually fail (even if we stayed with bitbucket, the hashes
> won't match). I doubt that we could set up any automatic forwarding for that.
> d) Any third-party which relies on our main repository will need to change as
> well (not directly "our" problem, but we need to give a reasonable amount of
> time for everyone to migrate to whatever will be our future official
> repository).
>
> Smaller issues (relatively easy to fix or not as important):
> e) Change links from our wiki (to downloads)
> f) Change URLs for automated doxygen generation and for unit-tests
> g) Automatic links from the repository to our bugtracker (currently "Bug X"
> automatically links to http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=X)
> h) Change hashes in bench/perf_monitoring/changesets.txt
>
> I probably missed a few things ...
>
>
> I see essentially three options:
> 1. Migrate to another mercurial provider
> 2. Convert to git, stay at bitbucket
> 3. Convert to git, migrate to another provider
>
> Honestly, I see no good reason for option 2. And the only real reason I see
> for option 1 would be that it safes a lot of hassle with b) and h) -- also
> perhaps it would simplify c) (e.g., we could easily crawl through our
> bugzilla-database and just replace some URLs).
>
>
> Any opinions on this? Preferences for how to proceed, or other alternatives?
> Does anyone have experience with migrating from hg to git? Or migrating
> between providers? Especially, also dealing with the issues listed above.
> Does anyone see issues I forgot?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr.-Ing. Christoph Hertzberg
>
> Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle:
> DFKI GmbH
> Robotics Innovation Center
> Robert-Hooke-Straße 5
> 28359 Bremen, Germany
>
> Postadresse der Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen:
> DFKI GmbH
> Robotics Innovation Center
> Robert-Hooke-Straße 1
> 28359 Bremen, Germany
>
> Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021
> Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0
> E-Mail: [email protected]
>
> Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
>
> Geschäftsführung:
> Prof. Dr. Jana Koehler (Vorsitzende)
> Dr. Walter Olthoff
>
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
