Re: Making github.com/apache/sling a git repo, moving away old svn mirror (Re: apache/sling as github landing repository)

2018-02-28 Thread Alexander Klimetschek 
On 27.02.2018, at 22:07, Robert Munteanu  wrote:
> IIUC the proposal was to import the old svn mirror as a git repo, and
> Betrand argued this would be a really large repo, and that's an
> impediment for something which would be heavily cloned.

You are right.

It could be two repos: the old one with all the old content and a new README 
landing page under the name apache/sling, and a separate 
apache/sling-aggregator which gets cloned and is lean. The landing page README 
can point to the aggregator repo.

Cheers,
Alex

Re: Making github.com/apache/sling a git repo, moving away old svn mirror (Re: apache/sling as github landing repository)

2018-02-27 Thread Robert Munteanu 
On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 20:57 +, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
> On 12.02.2018, at 01:23, Robert Munteanu  wrote:
> > The basic proposal as I see it would be to add a new 'sling' top-
> > level
> > github repo, which means that:
> > 
> > 1. we control what goes in there - README.md most importantly
> > 2. old links to sling commits and files will be broken .
> 
> No! It's absolutely not necessary to break the old links.
> 
> If apache/sling is based on the "old" repo, and you are only adding
> new stuff on the "master" branch (which is new, as it was never used
> in the subversion based Sling), you don't have any conflicts.
> 
> You can have your cake and eat it too in this case - that's what I am
> trying to say all the time :D It's just a matter of working with
> infra to copy things around and replace the github repo accordingly.

IIUC the proposal was to import the old svn mirror as a git repo, and
Betrand argued this would be a really large repo, and that's an
impediment for something which would be heavily cloned.

Robert

Re: Making github.com/apache/sling a git repo, moving away old svn mirror (Re: apache/sling as github landing repository)

2018-02-15 Thread Alexander Klimetschek 
On 12.02.2018, at 01:23, Robert Munteanu  wrote:
> The basic proposal as I see it would be to add a new 'sling' top-level
> github repo, which means that:
> 
> 1. we control what goes in there - README.md most importantly
> 2. old links to sling commits and files will be broken .

No! It's absolutely not necessary to break the old links.

If apache/sling is based on the "old" repo, and you are only adding new stuff 
on the "master" branch (which is new, as it was never used in the subversion 
based Sling), you don't have any conflicts.

You can have your cake and eat it too in this case - that's what I am trying to 
say all the time :D It's just a matter of working with infra to copy things 
around and replace the github repo accordingly.

Cheers,
Alex

Re: Making github.com/apache/sling a git repo, moving away old svn mirror (Re: apache/sling as github landing repository)

2018-02-12 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Robert Munteanu  wrote:
> ...The basic proposal as I see it would be to add a new 'sling' top-level
> github repo, which means that:
>
> 1. we control what goes in there - README.md most importantly
> 2. old links to sling commits and files will be broken . ...

+1

-Bertrand

Making github.com/apache/sling a git repo, moving away old svn mirror (Re: apache/sling as github landing repository)

2018-02-12 Thread Robert Munteanu 
Hi,

I usually am reluctant in revisiting old decisions, especially ones
that were so discussed, like this one. Some summaries of previous
discussion are at [1], [2] . But Alex makes some good points and after
the migration I think we should consider whether backwards
compatibility of incoming links is worth the limited control we have
over github.com/apache/sling, which many times is an entry point for
developers.

The basic proposal as I see it would be to add a new 'sling' top-level
github repo, which means that:

1. we control what goes in there - README.md most importantly
2. old links to sling commits and files will be broken .

TBH, I am not sure #2 is such a bad thing, given that I've seen people
still link to files in the old repo.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Robert

[1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9e1ceee36af811ba3d2a0a2baa249
8077281f0d3c1da29747a833ea3@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-7183