I would vote for making a deadline for ourselves such that we will have the plan determined by the 14th, so we can include it in the report.
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > 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 historical reference if we need it.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/
