Has anyone looked at the ConvertExtension from Mercurial? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2106204/migrating-from-mercurial-to-subversion
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 historical reference if we need it.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 > -- Thomas Broyer /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
