[discussion] svn migration plan

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3
Hello all,


I had a talk with Gavin today, informing myself about the migration from
SVN to Git. Since we have already a github mirror process we can not use
the self service.

I copied the chat to Cwiki, in order everyone can review what have been
spoken about. [0]

Summary:

We have to open a ticket at infra and order the migration. The migration
in general will consist of the following steps (taken from slack, chat
protocol):

The Infra steps in short

1. Verify Github repos is upto date and correct
2. we mark SVN read only
3. we clone the Github repos into Gitbox
4. we make them both writable

# We can have multiple Repositories.

# Gavin also whish that the depreciated CMS can be shut down in 3 month.
I promised we look into it and try to accomplish in the time. There are
no deadlines yet.


I suggest the following migration Approach:

1) We migrate OpenOffice Code to git

1.1.) OpenOffice main will move into one repository

1.2)  OpenOffice ext_source and ext_libraries will be split, and each
dependency gets its own repository.

1.3) extras/l10n will become an own repositry

1.4) test will become an own repository.

1.5) we adjust our build environment to reflect the new structure. I.e.
You need only checkout core and bootstrap can download everything else.
unzip step can be skipped.

2) We migrate CMS to a new solution. We have the option to go for the
alterantive, honestly I would like to migrate to a easy to use sollution
like neo CMS and migrate the mwiki too.

We need to be able to lower the barrier for non tech work where ever we can.

3) PMC folder should be migrated into CWiki.



All the Best

Peter

Older Discussions on the migration on [1],[2]

[0]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Git+Migration+-+Chat+Protocol+with+Gavin

[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c972affc61caf4844e7c82f7be9edf10fcd50753884cbaa7399999d1@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E

[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Damjan Jovanovic
That's a great idea, thank you!

1.1 - 1.5: test/ requires main/ to build, for Ant scripts. main/ requires
ext_libraries/ if not more.
Why can't we use one repository for everything, like the Github mirror
already does?

Regards
Damjan

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:16 PM Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>
> I had a talk with Gavin today, informing myself about the migration from
> SVN to Git. Since we have already a github mirror process we can not use
> the self service.
>
> I copied the chat to Cwiki, in order everyone can review what have been
> spoken about. [0]
>
> Summary:
>
> We have to open a ticket at infra and order the migration. The migration
> in general will consist of the following steps (taken from slack, chat
> protocol):
>
> The Infra steps in short
>
> 1. Verify Github repos is upto date and correct
> 2. we mark SVN read only
> 3. we clone the Github repos into Gitbox
> 4. we make them both writable
>
> # We can have multiple Repositories.
>
> # Gavin also whish that the depreciated CMS can be shut down in 3 month.
> I promised we look into it and try to accomplish in the time. There are
> no deadlines yet.
>
>
> I suggest the following migration Approach:
>
> 1) We migrate OpenOffice Code to git
>
> 1.1.) OpenOffice main will move into one repository
>
> 1.2)  OpenOffice ext_source and ext_libraries will be split, and each
> dependency gets its own repository.
>
> 1.3) extras/l10n will become an own repositry
>
> 1.4) test will become an own repository.
>
> 1.5) we adjust our build environment to reflect the new structure. I.e.
> You need only checkout core and bootstrap can download everything else.
> unzip step can be skipped.
>
> 2) We migrate CMS to a new solution. We have the option to go for the
> alterantive, honestly I would like to migrate to a easy to use sollution
> like neo CMS and migrate the mwiki too.
>
> We need to be able to lower the barrier for non tech work where ever we
> can.
>
> 3) PMC folder should be migrated into CWiki.
>
>
>
> All the Best
>
> Peter
>
> Older Discussions on the migration on [1],[2]
>
> [0]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Git+Migration+-+Chat+Protocol+with+Gavin
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c972affc61caf4844e7c82f7be9edf10fcd50753884cbaa7399999d1@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Mechtilde Stehmann-2
Hello Peter,

thanks for your work

Am 20.07.19 um 16:07 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> That's a great idea, thank you!
>
> 1.1 - 1.5: test/ requires main/ to build, for Ant scripts. main/ requires
> ext_libraries/ if not more.
> Why can't we use one repository for everything, like the Github mirror
> already does?

I also prefer one repository like Github is.

I already test buildung from Github repo under Debian 9 and it works in
general. I can't see any difference of the repo.

Regards

Mechtilde

>
> Regards
> Damjan
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:16 PM Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>> I had a talk with Gavin today, informing myself about the migration from
>> SVN to Git. Since we have already a github mirror process we can not use
>> the self service.
>>
>> I copied the chat to Cwiki, in order everyone can review what have been
>> spoken about. [0]
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> We have to open a ticket at infra and order the migration. The migration
>> in general will consist of the following steps (taken from slack, chat
>> protocol):
>>
>> The Infra steps in short
>>
>> 1. Verify Github repos is upto date and correct
>> 2. we mark SVN read only
>> 3. we clone the Github repos into Gitbox
>> 4. we make them both writable
>>
>> # We can have multiple Repositories.
>>
>> # Gavin also whish that the depreciated CMS can be shut down in 3 month.
>> I promised we look into it and try to accomplish in the time. There are
>> no deadlines yet.
>>
>>
>> I suggest the following migration Approach:
>>
>> 1) We migrate OpenOffice Code to git
>>
>> 1.1.) OpenOffice main will move into one repository
>>
>> 1.2)  OpenOffice ext_source and ext_libraries will be split, and each
>> dependency gets its own repository.
>>
>> 1.3) extras/l10n will become an own repositry
>>
>> 1.4) test will become an own repository.
>>
>> 1.5) we adjust our build environment to reflect the new structure. I.e.
>> You need only checkout core and bootstrap can download everything else.
>> unzip step can be skipped.
>>
>> 2) We migrate CMS to a new solution. We have the option to go for the
>> alterantive, honestly I would like to migrate to a easy to use sollution
>> like neo CMS and migrate the mwiki too.
>>
>> We need to be able to lower the barrier for non tech work where ever we
>> can.
>>
>> 3) PMC folder should be migrated into CWiki.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Older Discussions on the migration on [1],[2]
>>
>> [0]
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Git+Migration+-+Chat+Protocol+with+Gavin
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c972affc61caf4844e7c82f7be9edf10fcd50753884cbaa7399999d1@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>>
>> [2]
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3

On 20.07.19 16:35, Mechtilde wrote:

> Hello Peter,
>
> thanks for your work
>
> Am 20.07.19 um 16:07 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>> That's a great idea, thank you!
>>
>> 1.1 - 1.5: test/ requires main/ to build, for Ant scripts. main/ requires
>> ext_libraries/ if not more.
>> Why can't we use one repository for everything, like the Github mirror
>> already does?
> I also prefer one repository like Github is.
>
> I already test buildung from Github repo under Debian 9 and it works in
> general. I can't see any difference of the repo.

I do not believe having multiple repos will affect the process much, if
we do this right.

I did the cut at the folders, due the outside representation. It
suggested they were independent. If they are not then lets leave them
with the code.

What I would really like to remove from the Code repo are the external
libraries. They are a binary blob, and we put some patches on top them,
making it hard to really look at the code.

In an own repository these libraries would have a maintainable subset we
can push from and too. -Maybe even backport security Issues if we are
not able to update.

As for Distribution specific versions that do deliver own maintained
builds, you would not use those anyway. i guess at least.


But we can leave the structure as is for now if you feel more save with
that. I think we can split later too (i.e. if we think about splitting
on UNO)

I am not picky on this. It is just a suggestion to improve the situation
for us. And we have the opporunity because we have to think about this
anyhow.


All the best

Peter

>
> Regards
>
> Mechtilde
>> Regards
>> Damjan
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 2:16 PM Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>>
>>> I had a talk with Gavin today, informing myself about the migration from
>>> SVN to Git. Since we have already a github mirror process we can not use
>>> the self service.
>>>
>>> I copied the chat to Cwiki, in order everyone can review what have been
>>> spoken about. [0]
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> We have to open a ticket at infra and order the migration. The migration
>>> in general will consist of the following steps (taken from slack, chat
>>> protocol):
>>>
>>> The Infra steps in short
>>>
>>> 1. Verify Github repos is upto date and correct
>>> 2. we mark SVN read only
>>> 3. we clone the Github repos into Gitbox
>>> 4. we make them both writable
>>>
>>> # We can have multiple Repositories.
>>>
>>> # Gavin also whish that the depreciated CMS can be shut down in 3 month.
>>> I promised we look into it and try to accomplish in the time. There are
>>> no deadlines yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest the following migration Approach:
>>>
>>> 1) We migrate OpenOffice Code to git
>>>
>>> 1.1.) OpenOffice main will move into one repository
>>>
>>> 1.2)  OpenOffice ext_source and ext_libraries will be split, and each
>>> dependency gets its own repository.
>>>
>>> 1.3) extras/l10n will become an own repositry
>>>
>>> 1.4) test will become an own repository.
>>>
>>> 1.5) we adjust our build environment to reflect the new structure. I.e.
>>> You need only checkout core and bootstrap can download everything else.
>>> unzip step can be skipped.
>>>
>>> 2) We migrate CMS to a new solution. We have the option to go for the
>>> alterantive, honestly I would like to migrate to a easy to use sollution
>>> like neo CMS and migrate the mwiki too.
>>>
>>> We need to be able to lower the barrier for non tech work where ever we
>>> can.
>>>
>>> 3) PMC folder should be migrated into CWiki.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All the Best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Older Discussions on the migration on [1],[2]
>>>
>>> [0]
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Git+Migration+-+Chat+Protocol+with+Gavin
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c972affc61caf4844e7c82f7be9edf10fcd50753884cbaa7399999d1@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Branko Čibej
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Hi AOO devs,

I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm saddened
to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise the
reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the mail
archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to address.

-- Brane
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3
Hi brane,

The threads are linked in my first post.

It is for me a workflow thing.
I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
And I want github as public patch interface.
Both do not work with svn.

I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They expect to work with git.
IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from university are dictating a little their working environment.

Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even use git as a client.

All the best.
Peter

Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:

>Hi AOO devs,
>
>I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>saddened
>to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
>the
>reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
>mail
>archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
>problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>address.
>
>-- Brane
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Branko Čibej
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi brane,
>
> The threads are linked in my first post.
>

Thanks ... Sorry I missed those.


> It is for me a workflow thing.
> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>


Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example,
there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git
stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms  in the last 3
Subversion (minor) releases


And I want github as public patch interface.

> Both do not work with svn.
>
> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They
> expect to work with git.
> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from
> university are dictating a little their working environment.
>
> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even
> use git as a client.
>


I assume you mean git-svn? I'm not surprised.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Looks like nothing short of making
svn just another git would make you change your mind. :)

-- Brane


>
> All the best.
> Peter
>
> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:
> >Hi AOO devs,
> >
> >I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
> >saddened
> >to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
> >the
> >reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
> >mail
> >archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
> >problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
> >address.
> >
> >-- Brane
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Mechtilde Stehmann-2
Hello Branko,

Am 21.07.19 um 02:01 schrieb Branko Čibej:

> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi brane,
>>
>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>
>
> Thanks ... Sorry I missed those.
>
>
>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>
>
>
> Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example,
> there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git
> stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms  in the last 3
> Subversion (minor) releases
Most of the missing features were the reason why Git was developed.
As Peter said SVN is centralized, Git is decentralized.
With Git you can do your own home branch without publishing for testing.
And then you can do a Merge Request (on Github it is named Pull Request)

With Git you need one Repo e.g. with the two branches trunk and 42x.
With SVN you have two branches to checkout. So you need double space to
hold the repo locally for testing

>
> I assume you mean git-svn? I'm not surprised.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond. Looks like nothing short of making
> svn just another git would make you change your mind. :)

No.

Kind regards

--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Branko Čibej
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 07:25 Mechtilde, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Branko,
>
> Am 21.07.19 um 02:01 schrieb Branko Čibej:
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi brane,
> >>
> >> The threads are linked in my first post.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks ... Sorry I missed those.
> >
> >
> >> It is for me a workflow thing.
> >> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example,
> > there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git
> > stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms  in the last 3
> > Subversion (minor) releases
>
> Most of the missing features were the reason why Git was developed.
> As Peter said SVN is centralized, Git is decentralized.
> With Git you can do your own home branch without publishing for testing.
> And then you can do a Merge Request (on Github it is named Pull Request)
>
> With Git you need one Repo e.g. with the two branches trunk and 42x.
> With SVN you have two branches to checkout. So you need double space to
> hold the repo locally for testing
>


This last isn't strictly true (see 'svn switch'), but it doesn't really
matter; I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just to understand your
motivation.

Thanks everyone for your explanations. In time, we'll make Subversion so
much better that it'll wipe Git off the map. :)

-- Brane

>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Mechtilde Stehmann-2
Hello Branko,

On 21.07.19 07:24, Mechtilde wrote:
>
> Am 21.07.19 um 02:01 schrieb Branko Čibej:
>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi brane,
>>>
>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>
>> Thanks ... Sorry I missed those.
you are welcome. No issue.

>>
>>
>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>>
>>
>> Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example,
>> there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git
>> stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms  in the last 3
>> Subversion (minor) releases
> Most of the missing features were the reason why Git was developed.
> As Peter said SVN is centralized, Git is decentralized.
> With Git you can do your own home branch without publishing for testing.
> And then you can do a Merge Request (on Github it is named Pull Request)
> With Git you need one Repo e.g. with the two branches trunk and 42x.
> With SVN you have two branches to checkout. So you need double space to
> hold the repo locally for testing
I am not sure what you mean, you can do a SVN switch <branch path>,
which IMO does the same thing as you would do in git with git checkout
<branch>. I would probably clone 2 times with git anyhow. So for me
there is no difference.

Let me recap as use case description. Maybe it is more helpful.

1) As a user I want to be able to version my personal changes without
affecting other developers.

2) As a user I want to be able to have an intermediate repository, to be
able to checkout on different VMs in order to do private testing before
publishing.

3) As a user I would like to alias commands to my need or whish and
trade these settings with others developers in m community.

4) As a user I want o be aware how the SVN right management is set. We
had issues with this. This was not the decision in favour for git but
for cWiki. And I add this now, since I do a use case recap :P

5) As a user I want to be able to design workflows, for commits,
triggering tasks. For example review a commit fron annoymous login,
before commit is done. (The "github" feature ;) )

>> I assume you mean git-svn? I'm not surprised.
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. Looks like nothing short of making
>> svn just another git would make you change your mind. :)
> No.

I have no requirement for SVN to copy git. There are sufficient other
ways to full fill the requirements i have. And we do initiate the switch
after 2 years the decision have been made. That should tell you how
important the switch has been in the last  2 years.

I have no issues in returning to SVN in future. And I hope SVN sticks
around. I like to have it on work.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Matthias Seidel
Hi Peter,

Am 21.07.19 um 11:19 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> Hello Branko,
>
> On 21.07.19 07:24, Mechtilde wrote:
>> Am 21.07.19 um 02:01 schrieb Branko Čibej:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi brane,
>>>>
>>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>>
>>> Thanks ... Sorry I missed those.
> you are welcome. No issue.
>>>
>>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>>>
>>> Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example,
>>> there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git
>>> stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms  in the last 3
>>> Subversion (minor) releases
>> Most of the missing features were the reason why Git was developed.
>> As Peter said SVN is centralized, Git is decentralized.
>> With Git you can do your own home branch without publishing for testing.
>> And then you can do a Merge Request (on Github it is named Pull Request)
>> With Git you need one Repo e.g. with the two branches trunk and 42x.
>> With SVN you have two branches to checkout. So you need double space to
>> hold the repo locally for testing
> I am not sure what you mean, you can do a SVN switch <branch path>,
> which IMO does the same thing as you would do in git with git checkout
> <branch>. I would probably clone 2 times with git anyhow. So for me
> there is no difference.
>
> Let me recap as use case description. Maybe it is more helpful.
>
> 1) As a user I want to be able to version my personal changes without
> affecting other developers.
>
> 2) As a user I want to be able to have an intermediate repository, to be
> able to checkout on different VMs in order to do private testing before
> publishing.
>
> 3) As a user I would like to alias commands to my need or whish and
> trade these settings with others developers in m community.
>
> 4) As a user I want o be aware how the SVN right management is set. We
> had issues with this. This was not the decision in favour for git but
> for cWiki. And I add this now, since I do a use case recap :P
In fact, it was you having issues with that... ;-)
And it was not in the area of our source code.

>
> 5) As a user I want to be able to design workflows, for commits,
> triggering tasks. For example review a commit fron annoymous login,
> before commit is done. (The "github" feature ;) )
>
>>> I assume you mean git-svn? I'm not surprised.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. Looks like nothing short of making
>>> svn just another git would make you change your mind. :)
>> No.
> I have no requirement for SVN to copy git. There are sufficient other
> ways to full fill the requirements i have. And we do initiate the switch
> after 2 years the decision have been made. That should tell you how
> important the switch has been in the last  2 years.
>
> I have no issues in returning to SVN in future. And I hope SVN sticks
> around. I like to have it on work.
SVN will not go away, You will have to use it to access all the other
ASF areas.

We also will have to maintain it for the 4.1.x branch which will stick
around for much longer than I expected.
And now it will stay even longer as a move to git will postpone a
planned 4.2.0 release (my opinion).

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3

On 21.07.19 11:42, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>
>> 4) As a user I want o be aware how the SVN right management is set. We
>> had issues with this. This was not the decision in favour for git but
>> for cWiki. And I add this now, since I do a use case recap :P
> In fact, it was you having issues with that... ;-)
> And it was not in the area of our source code.

yap, but I did and do not understand this. It is just opaque to me.

So I am fine to formulate as a user story. And we had the issues with me
fucking up constantly. ;)




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
back to the initial discussion.

I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch and
tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.

I hope this suits everyone.


Please review:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773


On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> Hi brane,
>
> The threads are linked in my first post.
>
> It is for me a workflow thing.
> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
> And I want github as public patch interface.
> Both do not work with svn.
>
> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They expect to work with git.
> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>
> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even use git as a client.
>
> All the best.
> Peter
>
> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi AOO devs,
>>
>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>> saddened
>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
>> the
>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
>> mail
>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>> address.
>>
>> -- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Hi Peter,

Am 21.07.19 um 12:02 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> On 21.07.19 11:42, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> 4) As a user I want o be aware how the SVN right management is set. We
>>> had issues with this. This was not the decision in favour for git but
>>> for cWiki. And I add this now, since I do a use case recap :P
>> In fact, it was you having issues with that... ;-)
>> And it was not in the area of our source code.
> yap, but I did and do not understand this. It is just opaque to me.
Simple rule: Do not post private data in public areas.
NO versioning system will stop you from doing this... ;-)

>
> So I am fine to formulate as a user story. And we had the issues with me
> fucking up constantly. ;)
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Hi Peter,

Am 21.07.19 um 12:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> back to the initial discussion.
Obviously you didn't read my mail until the end...
>
> I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch and
> tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.
>
> I hope this suits everyone.

Do we have the necessary code changes ready?

We use the SVN revision in our About dialog, and for creating the source
builds. This has to be adapted when we switch to git.
Using the git hash (short or long) instead? This should have been
discussed...

Regards,

   Matthias

BTW: My latest builds are based on a checkout from git, no problems so far.

>
>
> Please review:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773
>
>
> On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi brane,
>>
>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>
>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>> And I want github as public patch interface.
>> Both do not work with svn.
>>
>> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They expect to work with git.
>> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>>
>> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even use git as a client.
>>
>> All the best.
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:
>>> Hi AOO devs,
>>>
>>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>>> saddened
>>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
>>> the
>>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
>>> mail
>>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
>>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>>> address.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Matthias Seidel
Hi all,

Am 23.07.19 um 11:08 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 21.07.19 um 12:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> back to the initial discussion.
> Obviously you didn't read my mail until the end...
>> I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch and
>> tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.
>>
>> I hope this suits everyone.
> Do we have the necessary code changes ready?
>
> We use the SVN revision in our About dialog, and for creating the source
> builds. This has to be adapted when we switch to git.
> Using the git hash (short or long) instead? This should have been
> discussed...
Given the lack of response, this has yet to be investigated...

Meanwhile my builds on Windows are now done from git. Additionally I did
checkout from git on ArcaOS (OS/2) without problems.

@Marcus:
The switch to git hash (instead of SVN revision) would require some
changes in the logic of our download page. Can you evaluate?

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> BTW: My latest builds are based on a checkout from git, no problems so far.
>
>>
>> Please review:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773
>>
>>
>> On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>> Hi brane,
>>>
>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>
>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>> And I want github as public patch interface.
>>> Both do not work with svn.
>>>
>>> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They expect to work with git.
>>> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>>>
>>> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even use git as a client.
>>>
>>> All the best.
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Hi AOO devs,
>>>>
>>>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>>>> saddened
>>>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
>>>> the
>>>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
>>>> mail
>>>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
>>>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Marcus (OOo)
Am 27.07.19 um 13:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 23.07.19 um 11:08 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 21.07.19 um 12:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Hi Matthias,

>>> back to the initial discussion.
>> Obviously you didn't read my mail until the end...
>>> I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch and
>>> tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.
>>>
>>> I hope this suits everyone.
>> Do we have the necessary code changes ready?
>>
>> We use the SVN revision in our About dialog, and for creating the source
>> builds. This has to be adapted when we switch to git.
>> Using the git hash (short or long) instead? This should have been
>> discussed...
>
> Given the lack of response, this has yet to be investigated...
>
> Meanwhile my builds on Windows are now done from git. Additionally I did
> checkout from git on ArcaOS (OS/2) without problems.
>
> @Marcus:
> The switch to git hash (instead of SVN revision) would require some
> changes in the logic of our download page. Can you evaluate?

I don't see any real dependency between our download webapge and SVN;
except with the writen SVN rev. with fixed text on the HTML webpage:

https://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html

Release: Milestone AOO416m1 | Build ID 9790 | SVN r1844436 | Released
2018-11-18 | Release Notes

Can you tell me how a Git hash on our pache servers looks like? If there
is no big difference in size, then it should be a problem.

*But:*

The biggest change is for the CMS. Does it support also Git? If not,
then we shouldn't change also the website repo to Git as nobody of us
(IMHO) can support this change.

Thanks

Marcus



>> BTW: My latest builds are based on a checkout from git, no problems so far.
>>
>>> Please review:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773
>>>
>>> On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>> Hi brane,
>>>>
>>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>>
>>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>>> And I want github as public patch interface.
>>>> Both do not work with svn.
>>>>
>>>> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn. They expect to work with git.
>>>> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I can't even use git as a client.
>>>>
>>>> All the best.
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]>:
>>>>> Hi AOO devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>>>>> saddened
>>>>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please summarise
>>>>> the
>>>>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in the
>>>>> mail
>>>>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some specific
>>>>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>>>>> address.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Matthias Seidel
Hi Marcus,

Am 28.07.19 um 20:12 schrieb Marcus:

> Am 27.07.19 um 13:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 23.07.19 um 11:08 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 21.07.19 um 12:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
>>>> back to the initial discussion.
>>> Obviously you didn't read my mail until the end...
>>>> I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch and
>>>> tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this suits everyone.
>>> Do we have the necessary code changes ready?
>>>
>>> We use the SVN revision in our About dialog, and for creating the
>>> source
>>> builds. This has to be adapted when we switch to git.
>>> Using the git hash (short or long) instead? This should have been
>>> discussed...
>>
>> Given the lack of response, this has yet to be investigated...
>>
>> Meanwhile my builds on Windows are now done from git. Additionally I did
>> checkout from git on ArcaOS (OS/2) without problems.
>>
>> @Marcus:
>> The switch to git hash (instead of SVN revision) would require some
>> changes in the logic of our download page. Can you evaluate?
>
> I don't see any real dependency between our download webapge and SVN;
> except with the writen SVN rev. with fixed text on the HTML webpage:
>
> https://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
>
> Release: Milestone AOO416m1 | Build ID 9790 | SVN r1844436 | Released
> 2018-11-18 | Release Notes
>
> Can you tell me how a Git hash on our pache servers looks like? If
> there is no big difference in size, then it should be a problem.
Exactly! There is a short and a long git hash. Which one we choose
hasn't been discussed yet. We would have to take either one for new
builds and leave the SVN revision for the old builds.

I just wanted to make sure that we think about such topics *before* we
switch.
>
> *But:*
>
> The biggest change is for the CMS. Does it support also Git? If not,
> then we shouldn't change also the website repo to Git as nobody of us
> (IMHO) can support this change.
As I understand it Peter only wants to switch trunk, branches and tags
to Git, not (yet) the CMS (site and ooo-site).

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> Thanks
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> BTW: My latest builds are based on a checkout from git, no problems
>>> so far.
>>>
>>>> Please review:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773
>>>>
>>>> On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>> Hi brane,
>>>>>
>>>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>>>> And I want github as public patch interface.
>>>>> Both do not work with svn.
>>>>>
>>>>> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know svn.
>>>>> They expect to work with git.
>>>>> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people
>>>>> from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I
>>>>> can't even use git as a client.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best.
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej"
>>>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> Hi AOO devs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o, I'm
>>>>>> saddened
>>>>>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please
>>>>>> summarise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> mail
>>>>>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some
>>>>>> specific
>>>>>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>>>>>> address.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Peter Kovacs-3
We migrate only code not the cms or other resources.

I have so far not managed to look at the hash topic.

Cms will be shut down soon. The question is how we deal with this.
Info is in the chat protocol in my original post.

Am 28. Juli 2019 20:29:09 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>:

>Hi Marcus,
>
>Am 28.07.19 um 20:12 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 27.07.19 um 13:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 23.07.19 um 11:08 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Am 21.07.19 um 12:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>>>>> back to the initial discussion.
>>>> Obviously you didn't read my mail until the end...
>>>>> I have created the request. Simply requesting that trunc, branch
>and
>>>>> tags are moved. All other folders should remain as is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this suits everyone.
>>>> Do we have the necessary code changes ready?
>>>>
>>>> We use the SVN revision in our About dialog, and for creating the
>>>> source
>>>> builds. This has to be adapted when we switch to git.
>>>> Using the git hash (short or long) instead? This should have been
>>>> discussed...
>>>
>>> Given the lack of response, this has yet to be investigated...
>>>
>>> Meanwhile my builds on Windows are now done from git. Additionally I
>did
>>> checkout from git on ArcaOS (OS/2) without problems.
>>>
>>> @Marcus:
>>> The switch to git hash (instead of SVN revision) would require some
>>> changes in the logic of our download page. Can you evaluate?
>>
>> I don't see any real dependency between our download webapge and SVN;
>> except with the writen SVN rev. with fixed text on the HTML webpage:
>>
>> https://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
>>
>> Release: Milestone AOO416m1 | Build ID 9790 | SVN r1844436 | Released
>> 2018-11-18 | Release Notes
>>
>> Can you tell me how a Git hash on our pache servers looks like? If
>> there is no big difference in size, then it should be a problem.
>
>Exactly! There is a short and a long git hash. Which one we choose
>hasn't been discussed yet. We would have to take either one for new
>builds and leave the SVN revision for the old builds.
>
>I just wanted to make sure that we think about such topics *before* we
>switch.
>>
>> *But:*
>>
>> The biggest change is for the CMS. Does it support also Git? If not,
>> then we shouldn't change also the website repo to Git as nobody of us
>> (IMHO) can support this change.
>As I understand it Peter only wants to switch trunk, branches and tags
>to Git, not (yet) the CMS (site and ooo-site).
>
>Regards,
>
>   Matthias
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> BTW: My latest builds are based on a checkout from git, no problems
>>>> so far.
>>>>
>>>>> Please review:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18773
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21.07.19 01:42, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>> Hi brane,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The threads are linked in my first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is for me a workflow thing.
>>>>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one.
>>>>>> And I want github as public patch interface.
>>>>>> Both do not work with svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I add a reason that I heard at work. Young people do not know
>svn.
>>>>>> They expect to work with git.
>>>>>> IMHO it is  a dumb argument but in my country the fresh people
>>>>>> from university are dictating a little their working environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahh and git has major pains reading OpenOffice svn repo. So I
>>>>>> can't even use git as a client.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best.
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2019 01:17:32 MESZ schrieb "Branko Čibej"
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>> Hi AOO devs,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just stumbled onto this thread. Coming from subversion.a.o,
>I'm
>>>>>>> saddened
>>>>>>> to see you've decided to switch to Git. Could someone please
>>>>>>> summarise
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> reasons for this decision, or give me a link to the discussion
>in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>> archives? I'd very much like to know if it was caused by some
>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>> problem or missing feature in Subversion that we may be able to
>>>>>>> address.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [discussion] svn migration plan

Marcus (OOo)
Am 28.07.19 um 21:31 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Cms will be shut down soon. The question is how we deal with this.
> Info is in the chat protocol in my original post.

OK, then we will have a big problem in order to serve our website pages.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

1234