I agree. We should move to the Apache infra whatever are the costs. Therefore I suggest:
1. Freeze all commits to the google-code repo from NOW. 2. All future patches will be pushed to the new Apache Wave SVN. 3. Settle a deadline for the migration - I propose it to be 18-th September 2011. I suggest 18-th in order to allow some more time for working on WIAB Hg->SVN code conversion. If by 17-th September the conversions efforts won't give results, then we will do a clean check in. Yuri On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Michael MacFadden < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 historical reference if we need it.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/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> > >
