Xircles supports both git and svn repositories...
Now how much of the UI is behind where Grandcentral.cloudbees.com is,
that's a different question for Ben. But from a technical perspective we
can have git repos at codehaus... Just a question of how easy it is for us
to create them all... If Ben can give the despots permissions and a UI to
create git repos... We are laughing... If Ben can't give a UI then that
would basically leave myself and Nicolas as the only people (other than Ben
assuming that the API is the same as GC) with the API knowledge to create
repos which may be too small a quorum to create repos for every project...
We may have to ask Ben what exactly can be easily done as bribes of beer
have been known to get intercepted by his brother-in-law and beer funded
development is likely the best way to get him to add features ;-) much
better if we don't need him to add features
On Friday, 28 June 2013, Lennart Jörelid wrote:
> I presume that most of us who have worked with distributed VCS's [Git or
> Mercurial, really] prefer them over SVN - just like we all felt when moving
> from CVS to SVN in the old days. It is simpler and considerably more agile
> to work in a DCVS environment for distributed projects, just like the Linux
> kernel folks figured out awhile ago.
>
> I presume that hosting repos at Canonical does not exclude us from using
> GIT or Mercurial as the VCS of choice, right?
> The alternative - splicing the mojo SVN repo into many smaller repos and
> moving them to GitHub - present both problems and opportunities. While I
> believe that the problems are more of a "brand" or "marketing" nature
> rather than a technical one ("does codehaus really exist if only spread as
> a set of repos @ Github"), I would prefer working with either Git or
> Mercurial.
>
> ... and I would love if they would be hosted and collaborated on @
> codehaus.
>
>
> 2013/6/28 Baptiste MATHUS <[email protected]>
>
> Not sure what your point is here.
>
> The thing is Git makes it *very* easy to just mirror entire repository. So
> even if we kept the canonical repositories somewhere at codehaus, that
> wouldn't prevent people from cloning an just pushing those repos onto their
> public clone @github or anywhere else.
>
> (Side note: I love Git).
>
>
> 2013/6/28 Fred Cooke <[email protected]>
>
> Absolutely agree with the canonical source thing! Any mirroring effort
> should be considered a temporary thing, and a migration path once the tools
> mature enough.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> There were some projects which moved to GIT.
>
> But after a short while they are now all DEAD!
>
> This has nothing to do with GIT itself (which I love), but with the
> missing 'ownership'.
> It's totally easy on github to just fork a project and fix your bug there
> - fully agree!
> But what about merging this stuff back? Well, this just does not happen
> most of the time.
>
> And this is the reason why I still love to have those projects over here
> at codehaus, eclipse or apache.
>
> Mostly because all people then know where to get the origin from.
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with GIT vs SVN. It just has to do with
> having some 'cannonical' source or not.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[email protected]>
> >To: [email protected]
> >Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 16:07
> >Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] Re: Mojo GIT migration or mirroring?
> >
> >
> >
> >Just asking: Does Github offer to provide an SVN mirror? Or is there any
> other way to have a mirror without too much hazzle?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Fred Cooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>For GIT users there are several ways to work with SVN, so that's
> probably why this isn't that urgent.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's not really a good reason not to, because:
> >>
> >> * The SVN >> Git process isn't fast (because SVN is itself SLOW)
> >> * Each converter has to find motivation to bother setting this up
> and doing it in the first place. (read, they'll just not bother most of the
> time)
> >>
> >> * Each conversion will have a different set of hashes even if the
> other parameters are the same and thus won't be able to be collaborated
> between effectively. Having a single official mirror means others can
> effectively work together on "it" with the final result pulled back into
> SVN when ready and then automatically pushed back to Git again. The work
> flow is a pain, but still a lot better than suffering SVN in the first
> place.
> >>
> >>migrate > 1 official mirror (per mojo) > N unofficial mirrors/leave it
> alone
> >>
> >>I'm not ignoring the work involved in mirroring, just pointing out some
> facts. I don't think the Maven tool-set / infrastructure is 100% ready for
> Git, to be perfectly honest. The sink or swim method may be a good way to
> get it there, but might be painful, too. I'd certainly appreciate more Git
> friendly behaviour, though :-)
> >>
> >>Fred.
> >>
> >>
> >>Robert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:44:33 +0200, Lennart Jörelid <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Folks... if anyone has an answer to this question, I w
>
> --
>
> --
> +==============================+
> | Bästa hälsningar,
> | [sw. "Best regards"]
> |
> | Lennart Jörelid
> | EAI Architect & Integrator
> |
> | jGuru Europe AB
> | Mölnlycke - Kista
> |
> | Email: [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>
> | URL: www.jguru.se
> | Phone
> | (skype): jgurueurope
> | (intl): +46 708 507 603
> | (domestic): 0708 - 507 603
> +==============================+
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
