git archive no longer being updated?

git archive no longer being updated?

[Randal L. Schwartz]

The most recent commit to the git archive HEAD is Dec 27.  I find it a bit
unlikely that no commits have been made since then.

Is it possible that the git mirror is no longer updating properly?

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

> Is it possible that the git mirror is no longer updating properly?

You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
manually.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

Andreas> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>> Is it possible that the git mirror is no longer updating properly?

Andreas> You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
Andreas> manually.

So the Savannah mirror is dead?  Perhaps it should be removed then so those of
us who were following will stop. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>
> Andreas> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>> Is it possible that the git mirror is no longer updating properly?
>
> Andreas> You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
> Andreas> manually.
>
> So the Savannah mirror is dead?

You should ask the owner.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

Andreas> You should ask the owner.

I'm presuming the owner reads this list.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Jim Meyering]

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> I'm presuming the owner reads this list.

I do, but not regularly.

I will remove that repository eventually.
In the mean time, I plan to push a change removing all files
except a README pointing to git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Giuseppe Scrivano]

Hi Jim,

if it is not a problem, can you please delay this task?  Actually the
emacs-mt repository is based on it.

Thanks,
Giuseppe



Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net> writes:

> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> I'm presuming the owner reads this list.
>
> I do, but not regularly.
>
> I will remove that repository eventually.
> In the mean time, I plan to push a change removing all files
> except a README pointing to git://repo.or.cz/emacs.git.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[David Reitter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:

> if it is not a problem, can you please delay this task?  Actually the
> emacs-mt repository is based on it.

I've been working on a process to rewrite my changes from 2009 so that all merges with the old Emacs branch now point to the new Emacs branch (so that the old branch can be thrown away.)

I use git grafts for now and would rewrite it once the new Git branch has gone official.

I won't have a fully automatic process, but I'm happy to share/collaborate with anyone who has the same problem.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Reitter writes:
 > On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
 > 
 > > if it is not a problem, can you please delay this task?  Actually the
 > > emacs-mt repository is based on it.
 > 
 > I've been working on a process to rewrite my changes from 2009 so
 > that all merges with the old Emacs branch now point to the new
 > Emacs branch (so that the old branch can be thrown away.)
 > 
 > I use git grafts for now and would rewrite it once the new Git
 > branch has gone official.

Doesn't filter-branch do everything you need?

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[David Reitter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> 
>> I use git grafts for now and would rewrite it once the new Git
>> branch has gone official.
> 
> Doesn't filter-branch do everything you need?

Yes.  Grafts are more convenient to test things out (and make the transition optional for other users of the branch).  Filter-branch should then change the commits according to the grafts, but then that will require all downstream users to "pull -f" at best, and, at worst, rewrite all their own (e.g., topic) branches. 

There are 4 regular users, so it's not that big of a deal.  Still, once is enough...


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Jim Meyering]

> if it is not a problem, can you please delay this task?  Actually the
> emacs-mt repository is based on it.

Hi Giuseppe.
I'll be happy to delay the retirement of emacs.git on savannah.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[David Reitter]

On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
> manually.

I've been trying it out and I'm having some issues with this wrt. my downstream branches, which have been based on the official mirror on Savannah until Dec 27.

Now, I can merge yours and the old SV mirror using the 'ours' strategy. This works in that is creates a common ancestor with the downstream branches, so I can merge the resulting branch downstream.

However, it is kind of ugly since git-log then shows commits from both the Savannah and the .Cz branch, even though the commits were functionally equivalent.  It's logical, but it keeps 100k redundant commits around.

Would it not be possible to rebase the new changes on top of the old branches, or directly do the fast-import with the previous repository from Savannah?  Or are there disadvantages to the old conversion?

(I haven't figured out how to use rebase without common ancestors, so I haven't  tried it out.)

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
>> manually.
>
> I've been trying it out and I'm having some issues with this wrt. my downstream branches, which have been based on the official mirror on Savannah until Dec 27.

Just rebase your changes on top of the new tree.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[David Reitter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> You can follow the mirror at repo.or.cz, but it is only updated
>>> manually.
>> 
>> I've been trying it out and I'm having some issues with this wrt. my downstream branches, which have been based on the official mirror on Savannah until Dec 27.
> 
> Just rebase your changes on top of the new tree.

Not that simple, because there have been many changes interspersed with (conflict-laden) merges from upstream, plus I have a number of topic branches. 

What I have done now is to extract alignment information from the old and new git branches for the year 2009, and I have a script that produces "grafts" to map all my merges to the new upstream branch to pretend that that's how they happened.

I can, later, rewrite everything to reflect the new state of affairs.

I've described the method here in case anyone can make use of it:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/136377/focus=136387

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Would it not be possible to rebase the new changes on top of the old
> branches, or directly do the fast-import with the previous repository
> from Savannah?  Or are there disadvantages to the old conversion?

The old savannah Git repository had some disadvantages (mostly it
lacked some merge info which Andreas added semi-automatically from the
Arch repository to his Git conversion).  So if anything, it's better to
rebase from the old savannah Git to the new repo.or.cz rather than the
other way around.


        Stefan

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[David Reitter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

On Jan 7, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> The old savannah Git repository had some disadvantages (mostly it
> lacked some merge info which Andreas added semi-automatically from the
> Arch repository to his Git conversion).  So if anything, it's better to
> rebase from the old savannah Git to the new repo.or.cz rather than the
> other way around.


Point well taken.
Andreas, is repo.or.cz the basis of the new official git repository, i.e. are all revids final?


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:

> Andreas, is repo.or.cz the basis of the new official git repository, i.e. are all revids final?

Anyone would produce the same revisions.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Miles Bader]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Andreas, is repo.or.cz the basis of the new official git repository, i.e. are all revids final?
>
> Anyone would produce the same revisions.

Except it still seems to have expanded RCS keywords... e.g. in
"/etc/schema/dbhier.rnc":

   $ git diff master:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc cz:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   diff --git a/master:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc b/cz:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   index 7605f19..1671b01 100644
   --- a/master:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   +++ b/cz:etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
    # Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
    # Standards (OASIS).
    # 
   -# $Id: dbhier.rnc,v 1.1 2007-11-23 06:57:44 hexmode Exp $
   +# $Id: dbhier.rnc,v 1.1 2003/08/30 04:19:27 jjc Exp $
    # 
    # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the DocBook DTD
    # and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee

["master" is cloned from savannah; "cz" is my branch cloned from repo.or.cz]

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> ["master" is cloned from savannah

Savannah is old.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Miles Bader]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>> ["master" is cloned from savannah
>
> Savannah is old.

I know, but that's not the cause of the difference.

If I do a diff between savannah master and the corresponding commit in
the repo.or.cz master branch, I get the same difference.

Below, "master" is the last savannah branch, and 9091c6767ef is the
corresponding commit in the repo.or.cz master branch.

   $ git log -1 master
   commit 9a339f5040b089f97a4b5c86eefa3942b2e5eda4
   Author: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
   Date:   Sun Dec 27 08:11:12 2009 +0000

       * minibuf.c (Fall_completions): Minor optimization.
   $ git log -1 9091c6767ef
   commit 9091c6767ef8ec4e84c5407d325cbacd53bcfe2f
   Author: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
   Date:   Sun Dec 27 08:11:12 2009 +0000

       * minibuf.c (Fall_completions): Minor optimization.
   $ git diff master 9091c6767ef
   diff --git a/etc/schema/dbhier.rnc b/etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   index 7605f19..1671b01 100644
   --- a/etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   +++ b/etc/schema/dbhier.rnc
   @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
    # Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
    # Standards (OASIS).
    # 
   -# $Id: dbhier.rnc,v 1.1 2007-11-23 06:57:44 hexmode Exp $
   +# $Id: dbhier.rnc,v 1.1 2003/08/30 04:19:27 jjc Exp $
    # 
    # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the DocBook DTD
    # and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee
   diff --git a/etc/schema/dbnotn.rnc b/etc/schema/dbnotn.rnc
   index 78dcd9d..2a6185f 100644
   --- a/etc/schema/dbnotn.rnc
   +++ b/etc/schema/dbnotn.rnc
   @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
    # Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
    # Standards (OASIS).
    # 
   -# $Id: dbnotn.rnc,v 1.1 2007-11-23 06:57:44 hexmode Exp $
   +# $Id: dbnotn.rnc,v 1.1 2003/08/30 04:19:27 jjc Exp $
    # 
    # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the DocBook DTD
    # and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee
   diff --git a/etc/schema/dbpool.rnc b/etc/schema/dbpool.rnc
   index a153493..46236eb 100644
   --- a/etc/schema/dbpool.rnc
   +++ b/etc/schema/dbpool.rnc
   @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
    # Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
    # Standards (OASIS).
    # 
   -# $Id: dbpool.rnc,v 1.1 2007-11-23 06:57:44 hexmode Exp $
   +# $Id: dbpool.rnc,v 1.4 2003/08/30 07:48:31 jjc Exp $
    # 
    # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the DocBook XML DTD
    # and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee

-Miles

-- 
Quotation, n. The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. The words
erroneously repeated.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Andreas Schwab]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>>> ["master" is cloned from savannah
>>
>> Savannah is old.
>
> I know, but that's not the cause of the difference.

It is.  The bazaar repo is now the master, and the git mirror on
repo.or.cz mirrors it exactly.  The tree on savannah is obsolete.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Jason Rumney]

Miles Bader wrote:
> I know, but that's not the cause of the difference.
>
> If I do a diff between savannah master and the corresponding commit in
> the repo.or.cz master branch, I get the same difference.
>   

>    -# $Id: dbpool.rnc,v 1.1 2007-11-23 06:57:44 hexmode Exp $
>    +# $Id: dbpool.rnc,v 1.4 2003/08/30 07:48:31 jjc Exp 

It seems that the second of these is the head of the original repository 
from which nxml was imported, and the first is from Emacs CVS.  Anyway 
this case demonstrates why version control tags in files are a bad idea 
- they just lead to superfluous and confusing diffs.

Re: git archive no longer being updated?

[Miles Bader]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:
> Anyway this case demonstrates why version control tags in files are a
> bad idea - they just lead to superfluous and confusing diffs.

I know this very well... :(

I hope they're not supported (by default) in any modern vcs...

-Miles

-- 
Future, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends
are true and our happiness is assured.