Re: SVN -> GIT mass conversion
Hi Roland,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while porting DebMed packages to Qlustar, we started a mass conversion
> of SVN to GIT package repositories. Since at the St. Malo sprint I got the
> impression that having as much as possible of the DebMed stuff managed
> via GIT would be desirable in general, we'd also start creating new
> repos for these packages on alioth that would allow to fully switch to GIT
> for these packages at a certain date. The goal of this is to standardize
> DebianMed on GIT entirely.
>
> The new git repos will have the standard structure with
> master/upstream/pristine-tar branches. They will include the full original SVN
> history and tags as well as the latest orig.tar (from the current
> version in testing) in the pristine tar branch, so that the package versions in
> testing will be readily recreatable from them using git-buildpackage.
>
> We plan to do the conversion in junks of 10 packages at a time and will
> announce these packages here in advance, so that the maintainers of them
> and everyone else will know about it in time and can check that the
> conversion was done properly.
>
> After a conversion will have been determined to be OK by all parties, we
> should have a process to decommission the corresponding SVN repo.
>
> If there are objections against converting certain packages (or the
> whole idea), let's discuss it here.
No objection from my side. However, I personally do not see the gain to
port all packages. While I think we have some people who remain in the
SVN age I simply would consider my time wasted to do a mass conversion
without any obvious profit. I would not stop anybody from doing this
but standardisation on its own would be no value in itself.
Specifically if I think about several R packages which have only tiny
bits in SVN but may be large chunks of data in Git we just fill up disk
space at alioth on local disks and bandwidth for no obvious win. Do you
have some stronger arguments for the move which would rectify this?
> Suggestions, comments etc. are obviously welcome.
As I said I'm not against progress so if you do some move please make
sure to drop a file according to the example in
trunk/packages/clustalx/trunk/README.status
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: