libchannel -- Carl Fredrik Hammar, GSoC 2007 (was: Moving to git)

Hello! On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Also, I'll add branches for the former GSoC projects -- are there any > > former GSoC people (CCed) who already have done their work somewhere > > else

nsmux -- Sergiu Ivanov, GSoC 2008 (was: Moving to git)

Hello! On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:39:34PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:20:01PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > > that okay?..

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, I wrote: > replace every ChangeLog file's content with information about how to get > back its former content, and that later in time the Git commit messages > are correct. This is now done; thanks to Olaf for suggesting a more straightforward word

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 08:31:09AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:00:52PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's > > > commit m

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:43:37PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > >

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > > that ok

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:00:52PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's commit > > messages > > +are valid. > > Is it really *after*, or starting with?...

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's commit messages > +are valid. Is it really *after*, or starting with?... A less ambiguous wording would be preferable :-) -antrik-

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? > > Well, the code certainl

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? Well, the code certainly should be fixed, according to what you learned in the meanwhile. As for the histor

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, I wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39:48AM +0200, I wrote: > > Here is one additional topic I want to confirm with you all before > > committing it: the duplication of ChangeLog snippets and commit log > > messages is a pain. However, it is not

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:20:01PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? > > > > I'd also be happy to be giv

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:05:30AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > > > it t

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:05:30AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > > it true that it is being suggested that my nsmux github repository be > > m

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > it true that it is being suggested that my nsmux github repository be > moved to Savannah? Or, even more, am I supposed to create a branch in > the Hurd git

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:29:50PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:25:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Also, I'll add branches for the former GSoC projects -- are there > > > any

Re: Moving to git

Am Mittwoch, 24. Juni 2009 15:23:29 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > So, to sum up: after the cut-off point, everything is as expected, and > before the cut-off point, the Git committer information is useless, and > the Git author information is the CVS commiter information, and the > changes' author inf

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:25:34PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Olaf asked whether we could fix the author and committer information > > for the changesets. This can't be done reliably in an automated way > > a

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:25:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Also, I'll add branches for the former GSoC projects -- are there > > any former GSoC people (CCed) who already have done their work > > somewhere else than in

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Olaf asked whether we could fix the author and committer information > for the changesets. This can't be done reliably in an automated way > and surely no one wants to inspect 10,000+ changesets manually. As I > consider a c

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Fetch the whole shebang from . > Give it a try. Unless someone finds any issues that really need to be > corrected, these trees shall be the new basis for our collaboration! Nicely done

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Later, I'll push a few branches containing Hurd patches applied (libpager > / ext2fs extensions, TLS support, ...), so that these can be easily > merged into your local working branches. Also, I'll add branches for the > fo

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39:48AM +0200, I wrote: > A bit of a status update. ... and again -- perhaps that last one? > The CVS to Git conversion is mostly finished. > > There are still some quirks with converting the > gnumach-1-branch-Xen-branch, but I'm working on resolving these wit

Re: Moving to git

> Here is one additional topic I want to confirm with you all before > committing it: the duplication of ChangeLog snippets and commit log > messages is a pain. However, it is not mandatory to maintain ChangeLog > files in the VCS sources -- it's fine with the GNU Coding Standards to > only create

Re: Moving to git

Hello! A bit of a status update. The CVS to Git conversion is mostly finished. There are still some quirks with converting the gnumach-1-branch-Xen-branch, but I'm working on resolving these with the help of the conversion program's author, Simon 'corecode' Schubert, whose fromcvs / rcsparse com

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 04:33:51AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:11:07PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > And I'm seeing the same (I think) problems: converting gnumach with > > git-cvsimport will yield an unusable gnumach-1-branch -- on which you > > w

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:11:07PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > And I'm seeing the same (I think) problems: converting gnumach with > git-cvsimport will yield an unusable gnumach-1-branch -- on which you > would still find all the oskit files that are not present in the CVS > branch. [...]

Re: Moving to git

Am Samstag 28 Februar 2009 18:11:07 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > branch. Guillem suggested using cvs2svn and then git svn clone, but that > has problems of its own: it at least misconverts the release tags that Recent versions of cvs2svn also offer the script cvs2git which can create a repository

Re: Moving to git

Hi Thomas, Thomas Schwinge writes: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 07:20:01PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of branches, >> several of which were active) to Git several months ago. The first >> attempt used `git-cvsimport' and was a failure

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 07:20:01PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Roland McGrath writes: > > But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get right. It works well for MIG and Hurd itself, but chokes on the gnumach repo. > We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of br

Re: Merging branches (was: Moving to git)

n apply the CVS commits on top > of them. > I've never committed anything to the main CVS repository :-( I keep committing to my git repository on github... I'd rather say it's bad in general, but it might be good in the context of moving to git... Regards, scolobb

Re: Moving to git

Hello, Roland McGrath writes: > But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get right. We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of branches, several of which were active) to Git several months ago. The first attempt used `git-cvsimport' and was a failure, because this tool

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:41:39PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > That libpthread should be split of (before doing the conversion) is OK > for everyone? No, better do it afterwards. I allows us to postpone the decision whether to preserve full history or not: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:

Merging branches (was: Moving to git)

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:41:45PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Do you think it is worthwhile to preserve your individual commits? Note that this is something to be decided by the maintainers accepting the changes, not the developer who created them... Though admittedly in this case there is n

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:58PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > The old CVS repositories will of course remain available for history > inspectio

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:58PM +0100, I wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > > > HEAD. > > > >

Re: Moving to git

At Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:50:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Rationale: split as far as it's still making sense. There is no > > > reason to have an interger hashing library, a pthread > > > implementation, an ext2 file system interpreter, libc amendments, > > > Hurd interfaces

Re: Moving to git

Thomas Schwinge, le Sun 11 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0100, a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I > > overlooked this thread > > That's why I addressed this email directly to you. Perhaps you c

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:05:52PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Olaf said some of the things I was thinking. When replying there, I hope to have addressed your concerns as well. > In short, I think this plan is too clever by half. Thanks ;-). Indeed I spent some time on this issue, be

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > > HEAD. > > > > With the exception of the GNU Mach Xen branch and the H

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 05:25:55PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Jim Meyering has done the cvs->git work for various things on sourceware. > (As I recommended for Hurd some months ago, this can be done in a > noncommittal way before switching from cvs for commits to existing > branches.)

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I > overlooked this thread That's why I addressed this email directly to you. Perhaps you can get such mails appear with a higher score in your mailer than

Re: Moving to git

Jim Meyering has done the cvs->git work for various things on sourceware. (As I recommended for Hurd some months ago, this can be done in a noncommittal way before switching from cvs for commits to existing branches.) He can give you pointers. But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get r

Re: Moving to git

Am Freitag 09 Januar 2009 23:05:52 schrieb Roland McGrath: > Repository conversion is repository conversion.  It's not an opportunity to > rejigger the history.  It's a fundamental failure of what the repository is > there for if it loses or divides the history.  There is no problem with the > size

Re: Moving to git

Hi Thomas. Olaf said some of the things I was thinking. In short, I think this plan is too clever by half. Repository conversion is repository conversion. It's not an opportunity to rejigger the history. It's a fundamental failure of what the repository is there for if it loses or divides the h

Re: Moving to git

Hello, Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I overlooked this thread olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 09 Jan 2009 09:38:20 +0100, a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > For the GNU Mach Xen branch, I'd like Samuel to tell

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > HEAD. > > With the exception of the GNU Mach Xen branch and the Hurd GSoC > branches, these are the only branches that see active development. So

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:36:25AM +0100, I wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. > > I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Well, that didn't work out, but here is my

Re: Moving to git

Am Montag 08 Dezember 2008 09:36:25 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > Hello! > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. > > I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Since the niches definitely sho

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: Digital signature