On Wednesday 07 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> >
> > After the switch to GIT there's not a whole lot of stuff on my
> > personal list of "0.3.x must have". There will be URLs to change
> > as soon as we de-emphasize the Berlios web facilities, which may
> > need to be part of the 0.3.x cycle.
>
> To clarify some of my own perception of this topic, I suggest we simply
> begin to use SF.net as our primary development service. Since we don't
> like their mailing lists, we need to find a significantly better
> provider for that service. Since I don't see as clear winner here, it
> seems sensible to continue using BerliOS for now, and they can continue
> to provide file and documentation mirroring for us indefinitely.
OK by me. Note that there are refs to docs at Berlios throughout
the source tree. So whoever updates the Users' and Developers'
guide snapshots next, might want to mirror new copies at SourceForge
and work out how to publish those URLs ... setup a true website
mirror, for example. (Or switch everything to SourceForge, etc).
> Rather than "moving," I see these changes as "growing", such that we
> seek to prevent total inaccessibility and communication breakdown.
> Changing to SF.net will simply change the metrics (for the better, or so
> we have been led to believe), but using both ensures this goal is met
Fair enough; although splitting efforts between two sites isn't the
easiest approach either.
For now, the SVN --> GIT switch seems to have hit a few key milestones,
so now we get to wait for the dust to settle.
> SVN seemed to be the biggest obstacle for developers during the outage,
> and we are now prepared survive such (e.g. by using GIT). SF.net can
> provide an "emergency contact" list, if this (or some other provider)
> goes down in the future.
>
> Are these in-line with your expectations?
Yeah; my priority was the GIT bits. That switch was clearly very
do-able, and I do expect we'll be getting much better than the weak
"one nines" reliability we saw out of Berlios. (Fortunately that
nine was the first digit!)
Other folk may have priority for other bits. Like release downloads,
the website, etc. Mail ... always a mess, sigh.
> I think the talk of ditching
> BerliOS has been reactionary, and the idea of dropping them without a
> clear plan would be rash. I do not believe you were suggesting that,
> but I wanted to address this subject constructively and directly.
Right, move one thing at a time and make sure it's fully moved and
that the result is an improvement in key ways. We have limited
resources to apply!
> > So talking in terms of an "RC" model, a week after switching to
> > the GIT repository seems like the a good time to want "RC1"...
>
> Again, this aligns with my thoughts on our progress, as that should also
> give time to finish converting the release process and script from SVN
> to GIT. It should be far more useful for others after the re-write too.
Right. You'll see I updated small parts of the text, only,
and left the release.{txt,sh} mostly alone where they were
discussing SVN procedures.
For GIT, I think the model is just to tag a release, and then
branch off that tag if we need bugfix releases (0.3.1 etc).
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
