Hi,
>> Cant we just remove it in our repo and let the mirroring process take care
>> of it on github?
>
> I'll give it a go but I don't think branch changes are being mirrored in
> github.
Yep the github been updated but patches branch has not been removed. I'd guess
it does't remove old branc
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Cant we just remove it in our repo and let the mirroring process take
> care
> > of it on github?
>
> I'll give it a go but I don't think branch changes are being mirrored in
> github.
>
> > Can you point out some examples (with url
Hi,
> Cant we just remove it in our repo and let the mirroring process take care
> of it on github?
I'll give it a go but I don't think branch changes are being mirrored in github.
> Can you point out some examples (with urls) of this issue? Will be easier
> for Infra to find out what is going
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sound good on the github changes.
>
> > flex-tlf: master
> This also has a develop branch (in git but not in github) - shouldn't that
> be the default?
>
> > 2. Ask Infra to clean up the 'trunk' branch from the flex-sdk GitHub
> > mi
Hi,
> The second part is about pull requests, and I think that will require some
> experimentation and will take longer to settle.
Issue as I see them are:
1. No visibility of pull requests - we had requests sit there for months
unnoticed. Ideally it should mail the mailing list when a pull reque
Hi,
Sound good on the github changes.
> flex-tlf: master
This also has a develop branch (in git but not in github) - shouldn't that be
the default?
> 2. Ask Infra to clean up the 'trunk' branch from the flex-sdk GitHub
> mirror.
Also ask to remove patches branch as well (not essential).
I thi
Here is a quick summary of what we decided in this thread:
1. Ask Infra to set the default branches for our GitHub flex repos as
follows:
flex-sdk: develop
flex-asjs: develop
flex-falcon: develop
flex-utilities: master
flex-tlf: master
flex-external: master
2. Ask Infra to clean up the 'trunk'
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/13/13 11:31 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >> Can we do it in two pieces? The first part is the subject of this
> email:
> >> Can we get the "develop" branch as th
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Jose Barragan <
jose.barra...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> Hi Om,
>
> In fact in our writable repo, doesn't have any branch called trunk, but we
> have one in Github, and is the default branch (this is the origin of this
> thread).
>
That seems to an artifact from
On 5/13/13 11:31 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> Can we do it in two pieces? The first part is the subject of this email:
>> Can we get the "develop" branch as the default and the graphs showing the
>> "develop" branch activity?
>
Hi Om,
In fact in our writable repo, doesn't have any branch called trunk, but we have
one in Github, and is the default branch (this is the origin of this thread).
--
Jose Barragan
Chief Software Architect
Codeoscopic Madrid
C/. Infanta Mercedes, 92.
Planta 5. 505.
28020 Madrid.
Tel.: +34 912
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Can we do it in two pieces? The first part is the subject of this email:
> Can we get the "develop" branch as the default and the graphs showing the
> "develop" branch activity?
I guess you meant this for flex-sdk. What about the others?
Sounds sensible enough ;-)
Just adding my voice to the consensus.
EdB
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Can we do it in two pieces? The first part is the subject of this email:
> Can we get the "develop" branch as the default and the graphs showing the
> "develop" branch a
Can we do it in two pieces? The first part is the subject of this email:
Can we get the "develop" branch as the default and the graphs showing the
"develop" branch activity? I guess that could also include removal of the
"trunk" if that's old SVN stuff. I think we have consensus on this?
The se
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Om, you seem to know what needs to be done, can you make sure the required
> changes get made?
>
>
I will as soon as we arrive at consensus here. Infra requests usually take
time and I want to get what we want in one go :-)
Thanks,
Om
>
>
Om, you seem to know what needs to be done, can you make sure the required
changes get made?
On 5/13/13 11:10 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
Other than that we should not spend more time on this 'issue'.
>>> This i
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >> Other than that we should not spend more time on this 'issue'.
> > This is an issue because it's seen by the wider community. I agree it's
> mostly
> > irrelevant to active committers but it is an issue for someone who does
> a pul
On May 13, 2013 7:30 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Once again, Git != GitHub.
> So we should either support it or not support it. Having a mirror in
Github and not supporting it reflects badly on the project.
Define 'support'. How much support does a reasonable person expect from a
'm
>
>> Other than that we should not spend more time on this 'issue'.
> This is an issue because it's seen by the wider community. I agree it's mostly
> irrelevant to active committers but it is an issue for someone who does a pull
> request and that request is ignored for several months. It an i
Hi,
> Once again, Git != GitHub.
So we should either support it or not support it. Having a mirror in Github and
not supporting it reflects badly on the project.
> We should not make any changes to our repo to accommodate GitHub.
Then we shouldn't support it and remove it. Is that what you wa
+1
2013/5/13 OmPrakash Muppirala
> On May 13, 2013 2:20 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Because those repos are svn mirroring in git/github they're not really
> Git repos
> > Cassandra, mavin and couchdb I believe use Git as their primary VC system
> (but not 100% sure) and are
On May 13, 2013 2:20 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Because those repos are svn mirroring in git/github they're not really
Git repos
> Cassandra, mavin and couchdb I believe use Git as their primary VC system
(but not 100% sure) and are not SVN mirrors.
>
> > in fact, if you review our f
Hi,
> Because those repos are svn mirroring in git/github they're not really Git
> repos
Cassandra, mavin and couchdb I believe use Git as their primary VC system (but
not 100% sure) and are not SVN mirrors.
> in fact, if you review our flex-sdk repo in GitHub, you can found a trunk
> branch,
Hi,
>> We've a Git repo, and master develop is the regular structure.
> Then why does github assume trunk is the default and not develop? Can we get
> this changed?
>
> Every other major Apache project I've looked at uses trunk/master for regular
> updates:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-so
Hi,
> We've a Git repo, and master develop is the regular structure.
Can you point to a single other Apache project that has the same structure on
github as us? Or any other project for that matter?
We currently have 3 main branches in github they are master, trunk and develop
which is rather
HI,
> We've a Git repo, and master develop is the regular structure.
Then why does github assume trunk is the default and not develop? Can we get
this changed?
Every other major Apache project I've looked at uses trunk/master for regular
updates:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr
https://gi
Carlos, Jose,
While we're on the subject, would you mind having a look at the other
thread about GitHub, the one concerning the handling of pull requests?
Thanks!
EdB
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Carlos Rovira
wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> -1 to move to old "trunk" svn layout. People comming to
-1
We've a Git repo, and master develop is the regular structure.
We must avoid mixing the things, to avoid the confusion increment
--
Jose Barragan
Chief Software Architect
Codeoscopic Madrid
C/. Infanta Mercedes, 92.
Planta 5. 505.
28020 Madrid.
Tel.: +34 912 94 80 80
On May 13, 2013, at 9
Hi Justin,
-1 to move to old "trunk" svn layout. People comming to this project could
came from SVN or GIT background, so reverting to "trunk" while we are on
GIT will be the cause of more confusion.
Nowadays, people should take into account the conventions over
configurations, and master/develop
This almost makes me want to start another "don't you love git" thread :-P
The whole idea of the git-move was to make it easier for new
contributors to come aboard the project, so from that perspective it
does make sense to accomodate the GitHub workflow as much as
possible...
EdB
On Mon, May
Hi,
Is there anyway to change the stats on these pages:
https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/graphs
So that they work off develop not trunk.
(And for the other repos as well.)
It's sort of giving the wrong idea (in a public way) re activity on the project.
Alternatively what do people think abou
31 matches
Mail list logo
