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
+1
All reasonable, and we can certainly try it with a few repos people are
interested.
On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> 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 zilli
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
+1000
and don't forget one of the simplest: maven-indexer
(my guts always tremble when I need to dcommit there, due to stupid eu/us
git-svn problems) :D
Thanks,
~t~
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> +1 to do it step by step
> The conversion is "easy" for projects ha
+1 to do it step by step
The conversion is "easy" for projects having already a dedicated
trunk/tags/branches entry in SVN
It will be less funny for plugins but possible.
I'm also in favor to split per project/lifecycle even if it is creating a
lot of repositories
The problem to loose the plugins r
2012/9/5 Kristian Rosenvold :
> 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),
Yes we must avoid such buzz/troll to save our 'reading importants
emai
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
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 that the immense ease of moving around in
history means that I never have to conside
I have no desire to keep a copy of the entire repo locally.
>From what I can see, the current SVN is well managed and well understood. I
see little value in changing, other than to pander to the current fad in
scm.
-Chris
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> How's Git doing a
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.
>
On 2012-09-04 22:10, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2012-09-04 21:55, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
>
> A pilot was started some time ago, with a few volunteering projects. I
> have heard anything about its progress in a while. I'll ask over @infra
> and report back he
jenkins does it (1 plugin = 1 repo ) and I sincerely see no solution
to avoid that.
Each plugin or each lib has its own lifecycle and requires to have its
own git repo to be clean
That's why on jenkins we have the IRC bot to manage them
But it is easier on github because they provide many APIs to d
2012/9/4 Andrew Waterman :
> The drools guys did a really nice move from Subversion a few years back.
>
> http://blog.athico.com/2010/12/drools-migrated-to-git.html
>
> One of the key things they did, was reorganize their poms and project
> structure.
>
> I'd be willing to help out. I think there
The drools guys did a really nice move from Subversion a few years back.
http://blog.athico.com/2010/12/drools-migrated-to-git.html
One of the key things they did, was reorganize their poms and project structure.
I'd be willing to help out. I think there could be a lot more to this move than
j
On 2012-09-04 21:55, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> How's Git doing at Apache these days?
A pilot was started some time ago, with a few volunteering projects. I
have heard anything about its progress in a while. I'll ask over @infra
and report back here.
> Anyone interested in pursuing putting Maven in G
> -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 very nice to contribute back.
31 matches
Mail list logo
