Testing it now... On 15-08-26 11:55 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
Yeah, switching to a git cloned repo and setting or overriding VCS=git in the Makefile should do it.
Sent from my phone.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 14:22, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
On 15-08-26 10:55 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote: I fear making a final decision will necessarily entail finding out how much of a pain dealing with Jenkins/Git is.
Jenkins with Git is trivial (the Stylesheets, Roma etc. are already using it). The only thing we'll have to deal with is the places in the Guidelines build where svn information is used, and I think you've already allowed for that, haven't you?
Cheers, Martin
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
A simple change to GitHub's SVN URL will not work; it seems the GitHub svn implementation is not full-featured:
java.io.IOException: Failed to check out https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines[...] Caused by: org.tmatesoft.svn.core.SVNException: svn: E200007: Server does not support date-based operations svn: E200007: The requested report is unknown. svn: E175002: REPORT of '/TEIC/Guidelines/!svn/vcc/default': 501 Not Implemented (https://github.com)
Should I switch to git and see what breaks, or shall we hold off on further experiments until we've made a final decision?
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-26 10:19 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
I think this repo:
<https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines>
should actually be called "P5", shouldn't it? It's a lot more than the Guidelines.
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-26 06:17 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
The tickets are not frozen, and are not moving yet (I just filed a bug!). The repo is the only thing that’s moving, and nothing irreversible has been, or will be done.
I’m asking that we try out working with the migrated repo, and see if there are any problems with it. That’s all. Meanwhile, let’s not commit into two repos at once. Fair?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s anything that can be done to make the repo migration run faster.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 9:08 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> > 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. > > 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) or (b) schedule the week for a time when people > know it's going to happen and can work round it. > > 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. > > >> 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 <mholmes@uvic.ca> 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/> >>> <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 <philomousos@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:philomousos@gmail.com><mailto:philomousos@gmail.com >>>>> <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>><; >>>>> 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> >>> <mailto: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> >>> <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 > -- > 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
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived