Re: [tei-council] GitHub Repo import

Hi Lou, On 15-08-26 06:08 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:

FWIW, I think we are rushoing into making this migration before we've actually assessed its cost/benefit/feasibility properly. We already had a week's "downtime" at SF, and we are now proposing to freeze all ticket submission for another unspecified period of time? That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

There's nothing to prevent us from keeping tickets on SF indefinitely; it's less of a problem if tickets go down for a week, presumably.

If it takes a week to do the migration then either (a) find a way of speeding it up (doing some weeding on the existing SF structure might well be a good start)

As I think I said before, I think that will make more work; the idea is to preserve the entire history, and if you do weeding, you're just adding more history.

or (b) schedule the week for a time when people know it's going to happen and can work round it.

Of course.

Do NOT spring on the TEI community a major untested change in our mode of operation as a fait accompli when they come back from the hols: that's just irresponsible.

That's why I'm proposing to test switching Jenkins URLs, and Hugh is testing other things. Nothing is set it stone, but we need to know what will work and what won't before we can make an informed decision and a proper plan. I'm with Hugh on this though, though: we don't want to run a week-long process twice. If it's possible to switch to GitHub as our repo now, then I'm all for it. Our community is already using our other projects on GitHub (Roma, Stylesheets, Simple etc.). Cheers, Martin

On 26/08/15 14:01, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think we’re not ready yet to move the tickets over. Raff’s only done one experimental run that identified a few problems. We’ll need to do some work on the migration script and try it a couple more times before we actually do it. I don’t think that move can happen until he’s back from vacation.

I only want to go ahead with the repo migration because it turns out to be so horrible. Anything that takes a week to run is something I only want to do once! :-)

Yes, let’s try switching over your Jenkins URLs and see what happens. The build process will work fine with git, but I don’t know how version numbers come through with an svn copy…looking at the EpiDoc repo, that uses the Stylesheets as an external, it looks like you get a regular-looking svn revision number. Not sure you could use it to look up an actual commit on GitHub though. If and when you actually switch over to git, the build process works fine (you just have to set VCS=git). Then you get a git commit reference.

...

On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:45 , Martin Holmes wrote:

There's at least one new ticket on SF:

<https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/568/ https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/568/>

We should disable ticket submission there and put appropriate notices in place redirecting to GitHub asap.

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).

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 mailto:philomousos@gmail.com> wrote:

Finally finished and available at https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines<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? -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org mailto:tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived