Re: [tei-council] GitHub Repo import

On 15-08-26 11:39 AM, James Cummings wrote:

On 26/08/15 13:45, Martin Holmes wrote:

...

I propose changing my Jenkins URLs to build directly from GitHub some time today, just to see what happens. Any objections? It should be easy enough to change them back if we decide against the move. I'm going to point to the GitHub svn urls, not git. The thing to watch will be what shows up in the Guidelines headers and footers (rev numbers).

Why github svn urls not git? I know some like Lou are using svn with git and such, but any reason in particular we aren't using jenkins with git?

That's what I'm suggesting I test now. But the build process invokes svn to get the rev number to put in the Guidelines pages, so unless Hugh's coded around that (I have a vague memory of his having done something about it already), that part will fail. Our earlier discussions included the proposal that, since the GitHub repo can be addressed using svn, a painless switch could be achieved just by changing a few URLs in the scripts and in the documentation. However, if that's not workable or not a good idea, then a whole lot more work will have to be done on the documentation as we switch to all-git-all-of-the-time. Cheers, Martin

-James

...

Cheers, Martin

On 15-08-26 05:15 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I went ahead and disabled commit access to the svn repo. We can always re-enable it should it become necessary.

...

On Aug 26, 2015, at 7:41 , Hugh Cayless wrote:

Finally finished and available at https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines

Took about a week to run, with one interruption over the weekend due to some network glitch. Given the degree of pain involved, if we think this looks good, I think we should run with it.

So let's:

a) stop committing to SF (at least for now, maybe forever). Maybe I should actually restrict commit access to it lest anyone not on this list push an update.

b) Check the above repo over for warts/see if anything's missing. There are a couple of branches that are artifacts of the CVS -> SVN migration that weren't visible on Sourceforge. We can probably get rid of them, but I haven't yet. There's also an sf/trunk branch, which I think is just a copy of master.

Thoughts?