Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Shawn McKinney wrote: > > If you are working with uncommitted changes but nonetheless need to synch > with server’s latest changes, simply push your uncommitted changes, pull the > latest, and then pop your latest changes back off the stack. er one more correction… If working with uncommitted changes, … git stash (not push!) git pull git pop Shawn
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Shawn McKinney wrote: > >> >> Yes please! Once I am familiar and the Directory project has been migrated, >> I could use it to start the wiki page we should have (analogous to the >> current SVN page). >> >> I think I might be tempted to try converting one of my own simple SVN >> projects to GIT. I suppose it is time for me to stop being scared of the >> dark! (Still, I'm glad it will be the advocates, rather than me, who will be >> responsible for migrating this complex collection of sub-projects). > > I’ve found 95% of working on an apache directory project is using these > commands: > > git clone proj-name actually more precise is git clone proj-url connectivity with a git remote server can be either using SSH or HTTPS. Either work just fine, SSH usually has integration with your SSH key which saves the trouble of reentering creds each push or pull. If you are working with uncommitted changes but nonetheless need to synch with server’s latest changes, simply push your uncommitted changes, pull the latest, and then pop your latest changes back off the stack. IDE integration with GIT is quite good at making rudimentary operations like merging almost an afterthought for the developer. The IDE will also cache credentials saving the trouble of entering on every change if using HTTPS connectivity. Finally, there are plenty of good tools to use that provide the ability to look at the change history (which should be preserved after the migration from SVN). Your IDE can do this or I like gitk. OK, now I’m really done, and time to git back to work. :-) Shawn
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Brian Burch wrote: > >> Yes, it can get confusing if you are working with active branches >> distributed over a large team, but otherwise quite simple to use, and there >> are plenty of good tutorials around that show the basic usage patterns. >> I keep a cheat sheet with the half dozen commands I use to manage code >> bases. I’ll forward it to you if you’re interested. > > Yes please! Once I am familiar and the Directory project has been migrated, I > could use it to start the wiki page we should have (analogous to the current > SVN page). > > I think I might be tempted to try converting one of my own simple SVN > projects to GIT. I suppose it is time for me to stop being scared of the > dark! (Still, I'm glad it will be the advocates, rather than me, who will be > responsible for migrating this complex collection of sub-projects). I’ve found 95% of working on an apache directory project is using these commands: git clone proj-name e.g. git clone https://github.com/apache/directory-fortress-core.git will check out latest or git clone --branch 2.0.0 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/directory-fortress-core.git will checkout everything from the last release, 2.0.0 The git clone command copies an existing Git repository. This is sort of like SVN checkout, except the “working copy” is a full-fledged Git repository—it has its own history, manages its own files, and is a completely isolated environment from the original repository. git clone | Atlassian Git Tutorial https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/setting-up-a-repository/git-clone Three more very common commands are: git pull <— give me everything up to the last pushed commit on branch I’m pointing git commit<- commit my latest changes git push <- push my latest commits into the global repository Performing releases of course will do more operations like creating tags but those ops are wrapped inside of our apache directory standard maven release process, automating most of it. Of course some projects require branching because their codebases get busy, and many features are being worked on simultaneously. Typically not the the case in our project. Regardless, you will eventually find yourself needing to understand how branching and merging works, and here is my cheat sheet for those ops. Hope it helps…. --- working with branches --- git fetch <- fetches new branches git branch -a <- shows existing branches git branch name<- create new branch of 'name' git checkout name <- to start working on this branch --- temporarily saving and retrieving uncommmitted changes --- git stash <- to stash uncommmitted changes, so you can pull latest changes, change to another branch, etc git pop<- to retrieve previously saved uncommitted changes --- rename a branch locally and remotely git branch -m old_name new_name git push origin :old_name git push --set-upstream origin new_name --- merge the brnach back to master --- git checkout master git merge name <- will fast-forward changes if no changes to the master since the branch git push <- to synch with global repo --- delete the branch (after merge) git branch -d name <- doesn't remove remotely git push origin :name Shawn
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1. Colm. On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Brian Burch wrote: > On 08/08/17 00:48, Shawn McKinney wrote: > >> >> On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Brian Burch wrote: >>> >>> I am not one to leap into the dark without a plan, so it was very >>> illuminating to be told why that would not be the case for the Directory >>> project. I hope your explanation will prove to be interesting to other >>> readers in the future, especially if they are confronting the same >>> conversion issues for a different project. >>> >>> I am considerably wiser now, and delighted to change my vote... >>> >>> +1 >>> >> >> Brian, >> >> Include me to the list of dinosaurs who’ve been subjected to a long list >> of SCM systems including, but not limited to, PVCS, ClearCase, StarTeam, >> CVS, SVN and Mercurial. >> >> In the past, my ratings for a particular SCM system would be based on how >> likely it was to do irreparable damage to my code rather than a propensity >> to actually boost productivity, for which I’ve always been skeptical. >> > > Yes, although I didn't spell it out, that was my most serious concern. I > still remember backing out a project conversion from CVS to SVN once I > realised all the change history had disappeared. I didn't mention it > because the same concern had already been mentioned with respect to GIT. > > Having said that, it’s my observation that git is by far the easiest to >> work with, and the least likely to do harm when things going wrong. >> > > That is reassuring.. > > Yes, it can get confusing if you are working with active branches >> distributed over a large team, but otherwise quite simple to use, and there >> are plenty of good tutorials around that show the basic usage patterns. >> >> I keep a cheat sheet with the half dozen commands I use to manage code >> bases. I’ll forward it to you if you’re interested. >> > > Yes please! Once I am familiar and the Directory project has been > migrated, I could use it to start the wiki page we should have (analogous > to the current SVN page). > > I think I might be tempted to try converting one of my own simple SVN > projects to GIT. I suppose it is time for me to stop being scared of the > dark! (Still, I'm glad it will be the advocates, rather than me, who will > be responsible for migrating this complex collection of sub-projects). > > Thanks for your reassurance. > > Brian > > Best, >> Shawn >> >> > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
On 08/08/17 00:48, Shawn McKinney wrote: On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Brian Burch wrote: I am not one to leap into the dark without a plan, so it was very illuminating to be told why that would not be the case for the Directory project. I hope your explanation will prove to be interesting to other readers in the future, especially if they are confronting the same conversion issues for a different project. I am considerably wiser now, and delighted to change my vote... +1 Brian, Include me to the list of dinosaurs who’ve been subjected to a long list of SCM systems including, but not limited to, PVCS, ClearCase, StarTeam, CVS, SVN and Mercurial. In the past, my ratings for a particular SCM system would be based on how likely it was to do irreparable damage to my code rather than a propensity to actually boost productivity, for which I’ve always been skeptical. Yes, although I didn't spell it out, that was my most serious concern. I still remember backing out a project conversion from CVS to SVN once I realised all the change history had disappeared. I didn't mention it because the same concern had already been mentioned with respect to GIT. Having said that, it’s my observation that git is by far the easiest to work with, and the least likely to do harm when things going wrong. That is reassuring.. Yes, it can get confusing if you are working with active branches distributed over a large team, but otherwise quite simple to use, and there are plenty of good tutorials around that show the basic usage patterns. I keep a cheat sheet with the half dozen commands I use to manage code bases. I’ll forward it to you if you’re interested. Yes please! Once I am familiar and the Directory project has been migrated, I could use it to start the wiki page we should have (analogous to the current SVN page). I think I might be tempted to try converting one of my own simple SVN projects to GIT. I suppose it is time for me to stop being scared of the dark! (Still, I'm glad it will be the advocates, rather than me, who will be responsible for migrating this complex collection of sub-projects). Thanks for your reassurance. Brian Best, Shawn
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Brian Burch wrote: > > I am not one to leap into the dark without a plan, so it was very > illuminating to be told why that would not be the case for the Directory > project. I hope your explanation will prove to be interesting to other > readers in the future, especially if they are confronting the same conversion > issues for a different project. > > I am considerably wiser now, and delighted to change my vote... > > +1 Brian, Include me to the list of dinosaurs who’ve been subjected to a long list of SCM systems including, but not limited to, PVCS, ClearCase, StarTeam, CVS, SVN and Mercurial. In the past, my ratings for a particular SCM system would be based on how likely it was to do irreparable damage to my code rather than a propensity to actually boost productivity, for which I’ve always been skeptical. Having said that, it’s my observation that git is by far the easiest to work with, and the least likely to do harm when things going wrong. Yes, it can get confusing if you are working with active branches distributed over a large team, but otherwise quite simple to use, and there are plenty of good tutorials around that show the basic usage patterns. I keep a cheat sheet with the half dozen commands I use to manage code bases. I’ll forward it to you if you’re interested. Best, Shawn
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
This will probably mess up the thread, but I accidentally sent it only to Emmanuel when I meant to reply to the list! Sorry for shooting from the hip.. On 05/08/17 20:24, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Comments inline... Le 05/08/2017 à 09:22, Brian Burch a écrit : On 04/08/17 18:16, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) I'm just a dinosaur! Ah ! And you are not alone :-) Born in 1964, I can tell you that I'm closer to the end of my carrer than the opposite... Some of my dormant projects are still held on CVS (to retain the history)! I made the switch to SVN for those projects which required it and adapted my methods to suit. As time went by I began to appreciate the value in the weaknesses of CVS which were addressed by SVN. I am comfortable with SVN, warts and all... When I was a student, working on MS-DOS machines, we didn't have access to any VCS. When I started to work I faced SCCS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Code_Control_System) and my first internship was about creating a shells script based interface that make it transparent for users : operations like 'edit ' were pulling the latest version of teh file, and 'save ' was pushing it back to the repo. It was in 1988... Then I switched to Microsoft SourceSafe (a huge improvement !), moved back to Clear Case (a clear regression, up to a point we needed a dedicated person to merge the changes :/). Then I switched to CVS, which was OK, but asI was also working in Java and specifically with IBM VisualAge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_VisualAge) - which aged no so well... - that included a VCS (that saved us many times). Except that sharing the changes in the team wasn't that easy. In 2005, when I started working on Directory, it was already using SVN (The ASF migrated from CVS to SVN around 2003,AFAICT). A huge plus compared to CVS especially when it comes to manage branches ( I hated so much the way branches were managed in CVS :/). SVN was not perfect, and in old versions, managing branches and merging was quite a nightmare ! It improves with the years, and especially the plugins for the IDE we are using (Eclipse), but we were years before being able to commit from teh IDE (during a couple of years we were mostly committing from the command line). So SVN is now stable, well known by people working on this project for more than a decade. But... (see later comments) Of course, I've had to work with GIT when a project has converted, and I've heard all the advocates many times before. It must be my fossilised brain making me still uncomfortable with GIT - it just feels "back to front" to me. In my mind, it feels natural to have an authoritative source and replicate it into my own "sandbox" to "play" with. Actually, we do have a authoritative source at The ASF : the code is stored on an ASF machine, because The ASF is taking responsability to provide code to the public. All in all, the way The ASF uses git is a bit different to what other organisations are used to. I also have to say that The ASF was quite relictant to use Git for good - and bad - reasons. Nowadays, I would say that 75% of the ASF projects are using GIT, and I don't know of ny new projects using SVN today. Anyway, I know your feelings : I'm myself so used with SVN that everytime I have to switch to git - and all the cryptic command lines options - it's a bit of a pain. OTOH, I realized that I have to work more and more with git those days, and it's now a pain to have to switch frm git to SVN and from SVN to git :/ And this is the whole idea : getting rid of this mental charge. I've noticed all the enthusiastic +1's for this vote, so I am resigned to having to adapt to yet another GIT project. All I can ask is that someone writes a helpful wiki page for those developers who want to hit the ground running once the trunk has migrated. Will there be any gotchas associated with the transitional period? Yes, we will need to write down a page about the migration. And there will be gotchas : - SVN ignores will have to be converted to .gitignore - our build is based on externals and I'm no sure we can have the same in git. OTOH, I'm not sure it makes sense anymore t use externals... - PRs will have to be handled, while we were mostly asking people to attach a diff to a JIRA when they wanted to propose a patch. So : [ ] +1 :
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
Le 07/08/2017 à 09:39, Radovan Semancik a écrit : > Hi, > > On 08/05/2017 09:22 AM, Brian Burch wrote: >> I've noticed all the enthusiastic +1's for this vote, so I am >> resigned to having to adapt to yet another GIT project. All I can ask >> is that someone writes a helpful wiki page for those developers who >> want to hit the ground running once the trunk has migrated. Will >> there be any gotchas associated with the transitional period? > > I was using SVN almost since it was born. You mean your parents branched you ! ;-) -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
Hi, On 08/05/2017 09:22 AM, Brian Burch wrote: I've noticed all the enthusiastic +1's for this vote, so I am resigned to having to adapt to yet another GIT project. All I can ask is that someone writes a helpful wiki page for those developers who want to hit the ground running once the trunk has migrated. Will there be any gotchas associated with the transitional period? I was using SVN almost since it was born. Even for some very large projects. Started my own project on SVN. But that quickly reached the SVN limits. So I was migrating the project from SVN to Git few years ago. It went absolutely smoothly, all the history is preserved and the whole team adapted to Git in almost no time. Git enabled a completely new dimension of flexibility. Few months after the switch I wondered how I could ever live with SVN ... There is no need to be afraid. You can use Git in almost the same way as you use SVN now. Looking back at my migration I found this to be very useful: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnCrashCourse -- Radovan Semancik Software Architect evolveum.com
RE: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1 Thanks, Jiajia -Original Message- From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:17 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List Subject: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks ! -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
Comments inline... Le 05/08/2017 à 09:22, Brian Burch a écrit : > On 04/08/17 18:16, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> >> "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) >> >> >> it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using >> svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu >> time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that >> should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git >> at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). >> >> >> However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to >> impact the project as a whole. >> >> >> Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will >> most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and >> teh site) >> > > I'm just a dinosaur! Ah ! And you are not alone :-) Born in 1964, I can tell you that I'm closer to the end of my carrer than the opposite... > > Some of my dormant projects are still held on CVS (to retain the > history)! I made the switch to SVN for those projects which required > it and adapted my methods to suit. As time went by I began to > appreciate the value in the weaknesses of CVS which were addressed by > SVN. I am comfortable with SVN, warts and all... When I was a student, working on MS-DOS machines, we didn't have access to any VCS. When I started to work I faced SCCS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Code_Control_System) and my first internship was about creating a shells script based interface that make it transparent for users : operations like 'edit ' were pulling the latest version of teh file, and 'save ' was pushing it back to the repo. It was in 1988... Then I switched to Microsoft SourceSafe (a huge improvement !), moved back to Clear Case (a clear regression, up to a point we needed a dedicated person to merge the changes :/). Then I switched to CVS, which was OK, but asI was also working in Java and specifically with IBM VisualAge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_VisualAge) - which aged no so well... - that included a VCS (that saved us many times). Except that sharing the changes in the team wasn't that easy. In 2005, when I started working on Directory, it was already using SVN (The ASF migrated from CVS to SVN around 2003,AFAICT). A huge plus compared to CVS especially when it comes to manage branches ( I hated so much the way branches were managed in CVS :/). SVN was not perfect, and in old versions, managing branches and merging was quite a nightmare ! It improves with the years, and especially the plugins for the IDE we are using (Eclipse), but we were years before being able to commit from teh IDE (during a couple of years we were mostly committing from the command line). So SVN is now stable, well known by people working on this project for more than a decade. But... (see later comments) > > Of course, I've had to work with GIT when a project has converted, and > I've heard all the advocates many times before. It must be my > fossilised brain making me still uncomfortable with GIT - it just > feels "back to front" to me. In my mind, it feels natural to have an > authoritative source and replicate it into my own "sandbox" to "play" > with. Actually, we do have a authoritative source at The ASF : the code is stored on an ASF machine, because The ASF is taking responsability to provide code to the public. All in all, the way The ASF uses git is a bit different to what other organisations are used to. I also have to say that The ASF was quite relictant to use Git for good - and bad - reasons. Nowadays, I would say that 75% of the ASF projects are using GIT, and I don't know of ny new projects using SVN today. Anyway, I know your feelings : I'm myself so used with SVN that everytime I have to switch to git - and all the cryptic command lines options - it's a bit of a pain. OTOH, I realized that I have to work more and more with git those days, and it's now a pain to have to switch frm git to SVN and from SVN to git :/ And this is the whole idea : getting rid of this mental charge. > > I've noticed all the enthusiastic +1's for this vote, so I am resigned > to having to adapt to yet another GIT project. All I can ask is that > someone writes a helpful wiki page for those developers who want to > hit the ground running once the trunk has migrated. Will there be any > gotchas associated with the transitional period? Yes, we will need to write down a page about the migration. And there will be gotchas : - SVN ignores will have to be converted to .gitignore - our build is based on externals and I'm no sure we can have the same in git. OTOH, I'm not sure it makes sense anymore t use externals... - PRs will have to be handled, while we were mostly asking people to attach a diff to a JIRA when they wanted to propose a patch. > >> So : >> >> >> [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git >> >> [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind >> >> [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN >> >> >> -1
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
On 04/08/17 18:16, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) I'm just a dinosaur! Some of my dormant projects are still held on CVS (to retain the history)! I made the switch to SVN for those projects which required it and adapted my methods to suit. As time went by I began to appreciate the value in the weaknesses of CVS which were addressed by SVN. I am comfortable with SVN, warts and all... Of course, I've had to work with GIT when a project has converted, and I've heard all the advocates many times before. It must be my fossilised brain making me still uncomfortable with GIT - it just feels "back to front" to me. In my mind, it feels natural to have an authoritative source and replicate it into my own "sandbox" to "play" with. I've noticed all the enthusiastic +1's for this vote, so I am resigned to having to adapt to yet another GIT project. All I can ask is that someone writes a helpful wiki page for those developers who want to hit the ground running once the trunk has migrated. Will there be any gotchas associated with the transitional period? So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks for being so diplomatic, Emmanuel. With your "encouragement", I am inclined to vote -1... However, if someone can explain how the peculiar SVN structure of the project would be improved by migration to GIT - I mean having to checkout the code and wiki sources under different urls and sandboxes, then I would be happy to vote +1. I am pleased to see everyone voting so politely! Brian Thanks !
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1 On 08/04/2017 10:16 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Hi guys, > > > "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) > > > it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using > svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu > time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that > should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git > at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). > > > However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to > impact the project as a whole. > > > Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will > most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and > teh site) > > > So : > > > [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git > > [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind > > [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN > > > -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure > we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but > I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and > for external users to push PRs. > > > Thanks ! > >
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1 ... but only because I cannot give +100 :-) -- Radovan Semancik Software Architect evolveum.com On 08/04/2017 10:16 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks !
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1, good move > On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Lucas Theisen wrote: > > +1, I did once use git-svn to convert a local copy a couple years back... It > was super slow but worked eventually... > > On Aug 4, 2017 8:40 AM, "SHAWN E SMITH" wrote: > +1 > > "The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. > He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the > imagination." > — Fred Brooks > > Shawn Smith > Director of Software Engineering > Enterprise Infrastructure and Operations > Penn State University > 814-321-5227 > se...@psu.edu > > https://keybase.io/ussmith > > - Original Message - > From: "Emmanuel Lécharny" > To: "Apache Directory Developers List" > Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:16:41 AM > Subject: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 > > Hi guys, > > > "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) > > > it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using > svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu > time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that > should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git > at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). > > > However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to > impact the project as a whole. > > > Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will > most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and > teh site) > > > So : > > > [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git > > [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind > > [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN > > > -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure > we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but > I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and > for external users to push PRs. > > > Thanks ! > > > -- > Emmanuel Lecharny > > Symas.com > directory.apache.org >
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
We use https://john.albin.net/git/convert-subversion-to-git for our conversions. Works pretty cleanly. "The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination." — Fred Brooks Shawn Smith Director of Software Engineering Enterprise Infrastructure and Operations Penn State University 814-321-5227 se...@psu.edu https://keybase.io/ussmith - Original Message - From: "SHAWN E SMITH" To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 8:40:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 +1 "The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination." — Fred Brooks Shawn Smith Director of Software Engineering Enterprise Infrastructure and Operations Penn State University 814-321-5227 se...@psu.edu https://keybase.io/ussmith - Original Message - From: "Emmanuel Lécharny" To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:16:41 AM Subject: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks ! -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1, I did once use git-svn to convert a local copy a couple years back... It was super slow but worked eventually... On Aug 4, 2017 8:40 AM, "SHAWN E SMITH" wrote: +1 "The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination." — Fred Brooks Shawn Smith Director of Software Engineering Enterprise Infrastructure and Operations Penn State University 814-321-5227 se...@psu.edu https://keybase.io/ussmith - Original Message - From: "Emmanuel Lécharny" To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:16:41 AM Subject: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks ! -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1 "The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination." — Fred Brooks Shawn Smith Director of Software Engineering Enterprise Infrastructure and Operations Penn State University 814-321-5227 se...@psu.edu https://keybase.io/ussmith - Original Message - From: "Emmanuel Lécharny" To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:16:41 AM Subject: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks ! -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
Le 04/08/2017 à 11:51, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > +1. > > Is there any tool to convert and remain the commit history? If there is any > downside, this probably is one if we can’t keep the logs. logs will be kept. AFAICT The ASF infra has tools to convert a SVN repo to a Git repo. -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org
RE: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1. Is there any tool to convert and remain the commit history? If there is any downside, this probably is one if we can’t keep the logs. Regards, Kai From: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:cohei...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 4:19 PM To: Apache Directory Developers List Subject: Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0 +1, most of the projects at Apache I'm involved with now have switched to git. Colm. On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny mailto:elecha...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi guys, "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to impact the project as a whole. Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and teh site) So : [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and for external users to push PRs. Thanks ! -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org<http://directory.apache.org> -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
Re: [Vote] Switch to git for Apache LDAP API 2.0
+1, most of the projects at Apache I'm involved with now have switched to git. Colm. On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Hi guys, > > > "It was the best *of* times, it was the worst *of* times" (Dickens) > > > it's a pretty big change : switching away from SVN to git. We are using > svn from the very beginning, so to speak 14 years, and it's probablu > time to use a more efficient and modern VCC system. To most of you, that > should be a no brainer, and we already have a few sub-projects using git > at Diectory (Fortress, kerby). > > > However, I think it's important to get this vote out, as it's gong to > impact the project as a whole. > > > Note that it will just be for teh API atm, but the other projects will > most certainly migrate sooner or later (ApacheDS, Studio, Mavibot and > teh site) > > > So : > > > [ ] +1 : switch Apache LDAP API to git > > [ ] +/-0 : I don't mind > > [ ] -1 : Keep going with SVN > > > -1 is not a veto, feel free to speak your mind. The idea is to be sure > we are all on the same page here : I don't feel compelled to switch, but > I do think it would make it easier for us to work on the project, and > for external users to push PRs. > > > Thanks ! > > > -- > Emmanuel Lecharny > > Symas.com > directory.apache.org > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com