All progress - even a clean check in - is good for the project. The next project report is due to do 14.09 - is there a chance to have a decision (not the solution) for this report?
Cheers On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Matt Richards <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, at this point it would likely be best for a clean check in. > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Michael MacFadden < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Honestly at this point, I would vote for just a clean check in. While we >> can talk about he use of having the history in the SVN, the fact of the >> matter is that I don't think it is really important enough to hold us up. >> That fact alone has been the only reason why we haven't migrated the source >> in nearly 10 months. The fact that no one on the project has spent the time >> over the last 10 months to figure out a solution says to me that it really >> is not that important. The revision history will stay on Google code for >> historical reference if we need it. >> >> Imagine if we had just switched over at the beginning of the project. We >> would then have 10 months of check in history in the SVN. Most times when >> we need to look back at the revisions it's because something had changed >> recently. If we had 10 months of history, I doubt we would be going back to >> the Google Code Hg very much at all. I think the need for the Hg history >> will decrease rapidly over time once we actually make the move. >> >> I know it would be nice to have the history, but it seems to be the road >> block. If we just bite the bullet and make the switch a few months from now >> I don't think it will be impacting us at all. >> >> ~Michael >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Yuri Z wrote: >> >> > Hello >> > Yes, you are stressing an important point. I don't think anyone on the >> Wave >> > project would like cancellation of the podling. So, the only solution >> would >> > be just complete the migration and move the source code to the Apache >> Infra, >> > hopefully along with the Wiki. >> > However, there are technical issues as well. I already contacted the >> infra >> > and the Apache SVN mail lists for assistance on the move from Hg to SVN, >> but >> > it seems like there's no single easy to use tool to do it. There are >> bunch >> > of tools that can help, though, but that requires investigation. If the >> > infra would provide some tool that would enable automatical migration >> from >> > Hg to SVN - that would be really helpful. >> > Yuri >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Wave has entered incubation on 2010-12-01. >> >> I think it is time to re-open the discussion on the source code move >> >> from hg to svn again. The project is now 10 months in incubation and >> >> the sources are still not the ASF. Without sources incubation makes no >> >> sense imho. >> >> >> >> Can we sum up what exactly is going on and what are the blockers? >> >> >> >> I know people are not keen working with SVN, but as long as there is >> >> no GIT at the ASF, this is the only way to go. If this is a blocker, >> >> we should discuss the cancelation of this podling. I think it is not >> >> (or should not) >> >> >> >> Are there technical problems - then we should outline whats expected. >> >> Maybe infra can help >> >> >> >> CHeers >> >> >> >> > > > -- > --Matt > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
