On 06/23/2011 09:17 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 14:02, Pedro F. Giffuni<[email protected]> wrote:
Disclaimer: I am no SVN expert but I play a lot with
FreeBSD's SVN repository.
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Mathias Bauer<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm no svn expert, but I hope to find some here.
We still have a lot of work in so called child workspaces
(in Mercurial they are just an own repository that
originates from the "main" repository).
In subversion those are "branches", so you create a branch
everytime there is a release or if you want to create a
your own custom project with experimental changes that will
be merged later on.
Yup. Here is how the Subversion project itself uses branches:
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/general.html#branch-policy
Regarding the existing CWSs, those repositories "should be" imported
as branches here at the ASF. I'm not entirely sure how to gather up a
bunch of Hg repositories and blend them into a single repository, but
that would be best. We can then convert that single Hg repository to
Subversion and load the sucker onto svn.apache.org.
Merging them in hg is easy, just pull/merge. But ... we are talking
about a hundred or so CWSs here. In all kinds of readiness states.
http://hg.services.openoffice.org
If we merge them now, we won't have a working OOo for a long time. Now,
we could skip the merge part and leave the heads "dangling". Hg heads
are kinda anonymous branches in Mercurial. Don't know if a repository
with multiple heads can be converted to SVN. Probably quite tricky (the
tool would need to generate sensible names for the different heads).
I would suggest that we only merge the "safe" CWSs in hg now and for the
rest take the patch approach Mathias suggested.
Never thought that we would ever have to go back to Subversion :-)
Heiner
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
