On 04/28/2015 04:53 AM, David Aspinall wrote:
> Hello Clément,
> Sorry I haven't looked in detail yet, hope soon.  Thanks for sending the
> tips of what you did.  I want to try again to get the names right and
> maybe some other minor surgery (looking at reposurgeon for that but
> haven't tried it yet).

No problem, thanks for the quick response!
cvs2git has a mapping of cvs usernames to git usernames, so it should just be a 
matter of finding the names and emails of each PG developer.

> I think your suggestion for Trac is sensible.  We might leave it up but
> make it read only, perhaps.

That sounds great.

> I've made a team for PG developers on GitHub, Clément you are invited,
> anyone else please let me know your GitHub username.

Great, thanks!

>  - David
> On 26/04/2015 02:01, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
>> Hi David & list,
>> David: Have you had time to look at my attempt to migrate to git? My 
>> username on github is cpitclaudel.
>> List: I had a quick look at options to migrate trac tickets to GitHub. There 
>> seems to exist solutions, but nothing too robust. There hasn't been loads of 
>> activity on trac in the last few years though, so I'm not sure if such a 
>> migration is really needed. And (as opposed to CVS) there is no need to 
>> retire Trac immediately after the migration.
>> Clément.
>> On 04/20/2015 03:49 PM, David Aspinall wrote:
>>> Hello Clément, all,
>>> This is a very timely message!  I have indeed started to think of making 
>>> this migration again.  Although I don't have a lot of time to work on it, I 
>>> would like to see it done.  There is an old attempt here:
>>>  https://github.com/DavidAspinall/ProofGeneral
>>> but it didn't get updated and indeed we could do a better job with the user 
>>> names.  I'll take a look at your attempt soon (which tool did you use?).
>>> I agree that we probably need to set a cut-off date and disconnect the old 
>>> CVS repo, the sync options don't look robust.  What I could most do with 
>>> help is converting the packaging/publishing tools to use the github repo.  
>>> (The web pages also badly need replacing but I'm not sure if anyone would 
>>> have the stomach to do that?)
>>> I'm slightly wary of needing to manage merge requests so I thought of using 
>>> a GitHub organisation for this to share the job and to host a central repo. 
>>>  Hence:
>>>  https://github.com/ProofGeneral
>>> If anyone on this list would like to join, please tell me your GitHub user 
>>> name.
>>>  - David
>>> On 20/04/2015 19:29, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
>>>> Hi Pierre and David (and proofgeneral-devel),
>>>> There were talks a while ago on the mailing list about a migration to git. 
>>>> I think this would be really cool. I experimented with various export 
>>>> options, and came up with the repo at 
>>>> https://github.com/cpitclaudel/proof-general/ . The problem with the 
>>>> process that I used is that it makes it hard to incrementally track 
>>>> changes (we would need to migrate once and for all).
>>>> Most of the history seems to have been preserved just fine, but it would 
>>>> be nice to map CVS usernames to proper names and emails; the authors in 
>>>> the CVS tree seem to be [assia, crr, cxl, da, djs, fionam, gklein, hhg, 
>>>> joheras, lego, makarius, mark, markus, monnier, patrl, pier, proofgen, 
>>>> pxc, sberghof, tews, tms, weber]. Is there a list of names and emails 
>>>> somewhere matching these usernames?
>>>> It would be great to get feedback on the history as recorded in 
>>>> https://github.com/cpitclaudel/proof-general/ ; also, if a migration was 
>>>> eventually decided, I could help with the process. One reason for 
>>>> migrating to Git and hosting on Github would be lowering the barrier of 
>>>> entry to new contributors: many of the changes that I made in my 
>>>> company-coq plugin could in fact be ported to proof-general. It could also 
>>>> allow for simplified distribution of extensions and updated versions, via 
>>>> emacs' package system.
>>>> Clément.
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list

Reply via email to