From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The Big Switch to Git Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:56:53 +0000 Message-ID: <87iqzbloi2.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87abl1uved.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206399443 9748 80.91.229.12 (24 Mar 2008 22:57:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 24 23:57:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jdvbx-0004r8-3u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:57:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JdvbL-0000Zr-Es for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:57:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JdvbE-0000WK-IP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JdvbA-0000SY-NN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JdvbA-0000SB-ER for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:57:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jdvb6-0007vw-B8; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:56:56 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732BD1F6736; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:56:55 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BB33800A; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:56:54 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87abl1uved.fsf@gnu.org> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s's?= message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:23:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7090 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Personally, I'm thinking about only importing `guile-core' for now (like > what Han-Wen did at http://repo.or.cz/w/guile.git some time ago). If we > eventually feel the need to import the other modules, we can do it and > have the Savannah folks let us store them in sub-directories. After reviewing what others have said on this, I'm inclined to agree with this lazy-import approach. > We can't easily setup a `git-cvspserver' on Savannah I'm afraid, nor a > bidirectional gateway, and I think the complexity of doing it would > exceed the benefit, especially now that Git has become widespread. > Thus, I think we should just leave the CVS repository as is. Of course, > we don't want to delete it, since it contains other modules, for > instance. What do you think? Agreed. Except that I think that we should "cvs remove" everything that has been transferred to Git (once it is clear that the transfer was successful). (Because there should not be two possible sources for the guile-core files, that can only confuse people.) > Once we've agreed on the details, one of the Savannah admins of the > project (i.e., Neil) will have to tick the "Git repository" option in > the "Select Features" menu item of the web interface, after which I can > just push the repository online. I think I can go ahead with this at any time, can't I? In other words: ticking this option won't automatically do anything bad to the existing CVS infrastructure, will it? > We'll also have to update all > references to the CVS repository. Agreed. Regards, Neil