The decision is obviously to migrate to SVN, the only question is whether it will be with a clean check in, or with history.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:08 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 historical reference if we need it.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 >
