Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Kevin RUE
Hi all, I think I'm facing a similar scenario ("prior history"), although I have messed up my original GitHub repo (https://github.com/kevinrue/ TVTB/commits/master) beyond my ability to synchronise it back to a working state. Basically, a few months ago, a bad mix of `git svn rebase` and `git

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
Hi Kevin, If your Github and SVN repos separated so much, then I’d just wait for the transition and then go from there. Once the git server is alive, you can make a new GitHub repo at that point. Nitesh > On Aug 10, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Kevin RUE wrote: > > Hi all, >

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
Hi Andrew, How important are these “founding” commits? The new git server will also start from “A”, as they go off the SVN repo state. The recommended practice will change once we move to the git server. I would not merge the branches, if they have unrelated histories. If it is possible to

Re: [Bioc-devel] unable to push local changes to bioconductor svn repository

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
In the meantime, You can choose to simply checkout the SVN repo, and commit directly to it. Nitesh > On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Turaga, Nitesh > wrote: > > Hi Gosia, > > The cytofWorkflow was added to the wrong svn location, and then moved. > > I really

Re: [Bioc-devel] Vignette for xcms fails to build on tokay1

2017-08-10 Thread Neumann, Steffen
Hi BioC, since that build error we have updated xcms to 2.99.6, and have started to convert the xcmsDirect vignette to Rmd. Now, we have the same kind of build error on the xcmsMsn vignette, http://bioconductor.org/checkResults/devel/bioc-LATEST/xcms/tokay1-buildsrc.html I think that just

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Stephanie M. Gogarten
I tried following the instructions in scenario 9 after adding a remote: $ git remote add upstream https://git.bioconductor.org/packages/GENESIS.git $ git fetch --all Fetching origin Fetching upstream warning: no common commits When I merge both upstream and origin, I see all my commits in

Re: [Bioc-devel] unable to push local changes to bioconductor svn repository

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
Hi Gosia, The cytofWorkflow was added to the wrong svn location, and then moved. I really don't know whether Bioconductor-mirror mirrors workflow packages; I think not, so the basic step of cloning from the mirror is not appropriate. Roughly, I think the strategy would be to configure, on your

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
Thanks Kevin. This is a good test to see that it works as expected. Please note that those changes will not carry forward. Nitesh > On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Kevin RUE wrote: > > Thanks Nitesh, > > I managed to push some changes to my other package "GOexpress"

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Kevin RUE
Thanks Nitesh, I managed to push some changes to my other package "GOexpress" during the beta a few days ago, so I'm looking forward to the transition next week. For that package, I didn't hesitate much to clone into a new repository and start fresh there. I think I'll do the same for "TVTB", I

Re: [Bioc-devel] unable to push local changes to bioconductor svn repository

2017-08-10 Thread Malgorzata Nowicka
Hi Nitesh, If I skip the "update_remore.sh" step, I do not get the devel branch created. One thing I have noticed is that in the git log there is Rpacks/cytofWorkflow in the git-svn-id. Should'n it be workflows/cytofWorkflow as well? Maybe this causes the problems? Best, Gosia $ git

Re: [Bioc-devel] git transition for projects with prior git history

2017-08-10 Thread Turaga, Nitesh
The SVN repo is the most current version of your package as far as Bioconductor goes. Unfortunately, you have totally unrelated histories by the looks of it. I would suggest moving forward with the new git repo, after the transition is done on August 16th. I would not “delete” the repository