On 2014-09-01 07:55-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/24/2014 9:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>>
>> DONE. See 6c81eb2.
>>
>> The files are called
>>
>> historical_repository_conversions/README_cvs2svn_conversion
>> historical_repository_conversions/README_svn2git_conversion
>> historical_reposito
On 8/24/2014 9:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
> DONE. See 6c81eb2.
>
> The files are called
>
> historical_repository_conversions/README_cvs2svn_conversion
> historical_repository_conversions/README_svn2git_conversion
> historical_repository_conversions/authors.txt
> historical_repository_conversio
On 8/24/2014 9:30 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-08-17 07:56-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>
>> This is fine with me. Perhaps the directory should be called something
>> like "historical" and "vcs_conversions", and you could include what
>> was done for the CVS to SVN conversion as well?
>
> DONE.
On 2014-08-17 07:56-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/17/2014 2:41 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> To make this file proposal concrete, I am suggesting storing the file
>> in PLplot_repo_information/README_svn2git_conversion (a directory and
>> name that are unlikely to be deleted by accident by anyone
On 2014-08-22 09:45-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/21/2014 8:48 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> So we were all in agreement that storage (in a file) of the SHA1 id of
>> the HEAD commits from each branch to be deleted would be enough to
>> guarantee branch resurrection, but it turns out that is inco
On 8/21/2014 8:48 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> So we were all in agreement that storage (in a file) of the SHA1 id of
> the HEAD commits from each branch to be deleted would be enough to
> guarantee branch resurrection, but it turns out that is incorrect.
> Further reading shows that git automaticall
On 2014-08-17 11:00-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>>> To make this file proposal concrete, I am suggesting storing the file
>>> in PLplot_repo_information/README_svn2git_conversion (a directory and
>>> name that are unlikely to be deleted by accident by anyone) that
>>> states the commands we used to
On 2014-08-17 05:52-0700 phil rosenberg wrote:
> Hi Hazen and Alan
> Did you see the email I sent last night saying you can tag a branch head,
> then if the branch is deleted the tag remains?
> This makes it trivial to delete branches but make sure they can be restored
> providing nobody deletes
On 2014-08-17 07:56-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/17/2014 2:41 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2014-08-16 22:37-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>>
>>> "git reflog doesn't traverse HEAD's ancestry at all. The reflog is an
>>> ordered list of the commits that HEAD has pointed to: it's undo
>>> history
Hi, Alan,
On Aug 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Ideas from the git gurus, please.
I think the ongoing concern/discussion of deleting branches in git might be due
to a lingering svn mindset vis a vis branching. I could be wrong, but I think
deleting a branch in subversion also d
l] Fwd: Re: [Plplot-core] git conversion status
On 8/17/2014 2:41 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-08-16 22:37-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>
>> "git reflog doesn't traverse HEAD's ancestry at all. The reflog is an
>> ordered list of the commits that HEAD has point
On 8/17/2014 2:41 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-08-16 22:37-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>
>> "git reflog doesn't traverse HEAD's ancestry at all. The reflog is an
>> ordered list of the commits that HEAD has pointed to: it's undo
>> history for your repo. The reflog isn't part of the repo itsel
On 2014-08-16 22:37-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/13/2014 3:16 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2014-08-13 10:28-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>
>>
>> That method does not seem fool-proof. See the expire subcommand for "git
>> reflog". Furthermore, some of the PLplot branches are still active
>>
On 8/13/2014 3:16 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2014-08-13 10:28-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
>
> That method does not seem fool-proof. See the expire subcommand for "git
> reflog". Furthermore, some of the PLplot branches are still active
> (e.g., test_cmake) and useful even though I will likely n
grouped together.
Phil
From: Alan W. Irwin
To: Hazen Babcock
Cc: Plplot-devel mailing list
Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014, 19:03
Subject: Re: [Plplot-devel] Fwd: Re: [Plplot-core] git conversion status
On 2014-08-15 22:40-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> I do agree removal
On 2014-08-15 22:40-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> I do agree removal of all these weird (from the git point of view)
> branches is an excellent future goal so long as we have a fool-proof
> permanent way to resurrect those branches (even just for the purpose
> of understanding the early history of P
On 2014-08-15 21:19-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On 8/13/2014 4:38 PM, phil rosenberg wrote:
>> The impression I get from reading the docs and the post you linked Alan, is
>> that there is a tendency for people coming from svn to forget that git is a
>> distributed vcs. Perhaps some of these bran
On 8/13/2014 4:38 PM, phil rosenberg wrote:
> The impression I get from reading the docs and the post you linked Alan, is
> that there is a tendency for people coming from svn to forget that git is a
> distributed vcs. Perhaps some of these branches would be more at home in the
> various develop
nd I'm
a newbie to git, so feel free to ignore me completely :-)
Phil
From: Alan W. Irwin
To: Hazen Babcock
Cc: Plplot-devel mailing list
Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2014, 20:16
Subject: Re: [Plplot-devel] Fwd: Re: [Plplot-core] git conversion status
On 2014-08-13 10:28-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
> Sending this to a wider audience. In short, PLplot is now using git for
> version control.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/plplot/plplot/ci/master/tree/
>
> -Hazen
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [Plplot-core] git conversion stat
Sending this to a wider audience. In short, PLplot is now using git for
version control.
http://sourceforge.net/p/plplot/plplot/ci/master/tree/
-Hazen
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Plplot-core] git conversion status
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:24:27 -0400
From: Hazen Babcock
21 matches
Mail list logo
