And, as I commented in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Scheme+for+managing+Maven+source+in+Git,
I think we're perfectly happy just to keep the current module
structure. There may be some opportunities related to changing it, but
I think most of us can agree on just keeping up the
2012/9/6 Chris Graham :
> The fact that a lot of people have said +1 and there are still discussions
> around how to best set up a repo, means to me, that there is lots more room
> for dissussion.
We have a hundred projects or more ;) A substantial group of people
here have been through extensive
Has anyone stopped to ask any other projects (both apache and non-apache)
who have done what is being proposed here:
- How they found it?
- What did they do well?
- What did they do poorly?
- What pain points did they have?
- What would they do differently, if they had to do it again?
- What benef
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> 2012/9/5 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> Last note: i think the plugin you speak about (create a kind of virtual
>> project) will be a nightmare. Scm are nice but can be broken and when you
>> dont have a 1:1 with remote repo it is even harder
>
>
2012/9/5 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> Last note: i think the plugin you speak about (create a kind of virtual
> project) will be a nightmare. Scm are nice but can be broken and when you
> dont have a 1:1 with remote repo it is even harder
I would really like some elaboration on this, since I'm not sure
Im not a mvn community member but use if everyday and would like to share
my thought about this thread: "don't make sthg trivial hard"
Git is awesome for the purpose it was created.
In this thread there are several issues not all linked to the scm
Last note: i think the plugin you speak about (c
2012/9/5 Mark Struberg :
> Well, I consider myself a git black-belt user as well (I even wrote parts of
> the german man pages).
I know you are ;)
> Let's just consider we will abandon some old plugin because we replaced it
> with a much better approach. In SVN you just create a branch for maint
not easily make sure that you checked all plugins!
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Kristian Rosenvold
> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Git as the canonical SCM
>
> While
(perso) don't want
>> we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
>> IMHO That will be a pain to manage.
>>
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:09 PM, "Jason Pyeron" wrote:
&g
in the history...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
>> From: Stanislav Ochotnicky
>> To: Maven Developers List
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: Git as the canonical SCM
>>
>> Quot
ember 5, 2012 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Git as the canonical SCM
>
> Quoting Olivier Lamy (2012-09-04 22:23:11)
> ...
>> Due to lack of support of sparse checkout in git, I (perso) don't want
>> we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
>> IMHO That will b
2012 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Git as the canonical SCM
>
> I think we should move to git; probably starting with a few
> repositories. I will not go into the argument as to why (it's been
> covered like a zillion times, link by Andrew covers a lot of it),
> other than to mention tha
I agree.
> > > I use git on other oss projects (Apache: cloudstack and non Apache:
> > > jenkins ...) and git svn for some asf projects.
> > > Due to lack of support of sparse checkout in git, I (perso) don't want
> > > we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
> > >
dstack and non Apache:
> > jenkins ...) and git svn for some asf projects.
> > Due to lack of support of sparse checkout in git, I (perso) don't want
> > we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
> > IMHO That will be a pain to manage.
> >
> >>
> >> best wishes,
&g
>> we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
>> IMHO That will be a pain to manage.
>>
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:09 PM, "Jason Pyeron" wrote:
>>>
>>>>&g
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
[del]
> Which makes me think we should consider such a switch an opportunity
> to re-think some of our tooling
> around multi-module projects. What the 99% others want (who're not
> setting up a CI) is a checkout algorithm that builds the
Quoting Olivier Lamy (2012-09-04 22:23:11)
...
> Due to lack of support of sparse checkout in git, I (perso) don't want
> we have to create a git repo per plugin etc...
> IMHO That will be a pain to manage.
No longer true, git has sparse checkout support (I believe since 1.7.0).
See http://git-sc
gt;
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:09 PM, "Jason Pyeron" wrote:
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-
>>>> From: Jason van Zyl
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 15:55
>>>>
>>>> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
&
s Git doing at Apache these days?
>
> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the canonical SCM?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> Fou
On 4 September 2012 14:29, Mark Struberg wrote:
> just take as example that you like to checkout all maven core plugins in one
> go because you like to do some refactoring/checks/upgrade.
> That would require you to go into each plugin project and get the stuff from
> there. And where would you
>> Same applies to all other projects which are kind of 'aggregator' like
>> maven-core, shared, etc
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Benson Margulies
>>> To: Maven De
; maven-core, shared, etc
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Benson Margulies
>> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg
>>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: Git as t
?
Same applies to all other projects which are kind of 'aggregator' like
maven-core, shared, etc
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Benson Margulies
> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:18 PM
Mark, I disagree. Any group of modules that is released together can
just have a git repo. What case do you have in mind where we'd need to
fight with the git submodule madness?
For others: if a project wants to move to git, the project must
provide a sacrificial victim volunteer to help with git
.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Andrew Waterman
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Git as the canonical SCM
>
>T he drools guys did a really nice move from Subversion a few years back.
>
ver @infra
> and report back here.
It seems that it's not yet ready [1] for prime time.
[1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/docs/switching-to-git.html
>> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the canonical SCM?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
--Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jason van Zyl
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 15:55
>>>>
>>>> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the
>>
Message-
>>> From: Jason van Zyl
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 15:55
>>>
>>> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
>>>
>>> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the
>>> canonical SCM?
>>
>> Comments fr
>> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
>>
>> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the
>> canonical SCM?
>
> Comments from the peanut gallery: It would make it very nice to contribute
> back.
> Since I do not have a sandbox access I have thrown
putting Maven in Git as the canonical SCM?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> --
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 15:55
>
> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
>
> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the
> canonical SCM?
Comments from the peanut gallery: It would make it
How's Git doing at Apache these days?
Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in Git as the canonical SCM?
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.co
32 matches
Mail list logo
