Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > 3) The idea is to have the "main" repository at GitLab, next to the > issues and merge requests. This leads to the question what to do with > Savannah because git is distributed anyway. I first thought about only > pushing "important" branches and tags to GitLab (master, stable/*, > release/*). Switching platforms would actually be one of the few > opportunities to do so - in particular tags are hard to get rid of. > However most of us are probably going to reuse their local repository, > just updating the URL. While GitLab has options to prevent pushing > certain refs, that's probably not a great idea. So I guess I'll just > push an identical copy to GitLab unless somebody has a better > proposal. > > Ultimately we can talk about cleaning up the Savannah repo and only > keeping the "important" branches there. This could for example be > coupled with automated mirroring, which GitLab supports out-of-the-box. > I won't look into this for the initial switch though, so just make sure > you're not pushing conflicting commits there...
What kind of mirroring options are there? I think it makes sense for the non-developer access to keep referring/pointing to Savannah since I consider it a resource with more long-term dependable availability. -- David Kastrup
