Finally finished and available at 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?
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> 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?
There's at least one new ticket on SF: <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> 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?
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/>>
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>> 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
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/>>
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>> 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
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
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
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
I fear making a final decision will necessarily entail finding out how much of a pain dealing with Jenkins/Git is. 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
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
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
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
The Guidelines build from git went OK after I tweaked URLs and command line parameters: <http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5-Documentation/ws/P5/Guidelines-web/en/html/index.html> I took a bit of a shortcut because of my gitignorance: in svn, you can just check out any folder in the tree, and we use that in TEIP5-Test and TEIP5-Documentation to check out only the P5 part of the tree, but in git it seems to be rather complicated to do that, involving some of pre-configuration and a sparse checkout, so I have those projects checking out the whole source tree and changing directories to do their thing. No big deal, just more crap in the workspace on the server for those jobs. If there's a one-line way to check out a subtree of a git repo that Jenkins understands, I'd rather do that, though. Trying the full P5 build next. Cheers, Martin 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
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-) Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
You know those cartoons where the human is talking to the cat? and the cat hears only the word "food"? "clone", "commit and push" don't mean a lot to the unregenerate svn user. On 29/08/15 16:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-)
Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> Date: 29/08/2015 16:56 (GMT+00:00) To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Subject: Re: [tei-council] GitHub Repo import You know those cartoons where the human is talking to the cat? and the cat hears only the word "food"? "clone", "commit and push" don't mean a lot to the unregenerate svn user. On 29/08/15 16:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-)
Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
You could try: git clone https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git> cd Guidelines git checkout P5-Pure copy your changes into Guidelines/ in the right spot. If you have any new files: git add path/to/new/file git commit -am "What I did on my summer vacation." git push origin P5-Pure All done! See also https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md> and let me know where it fails to elucidate what’s going on. Basically, git clone == svn checkout; git add == svn add; git commit + git push == svn commit. The main difference being that you have a full copy of the repo locally, so you have an extra step of syncing your local repo with the remote repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 11:56 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
You know those cartoons where the human is talking to the cat? and the cat hears only the word "food"? "clone", "commit and push" don't mean a lot to the unregenerate svn user.
On 29/08/15 16:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-)
Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
Thanks -- that's very helpful. I tried it, and have only few very minor problems to report: a) Why does it insist on calling my working copy "Guidelines" ? Can I rename it to something else? b) After my git checkout P5-Pure it says: Branch P5-Pure set up to track remote branch P5-Pure from origin. Switched to a new branch 'P5-Pure' but how do I remember that the folder called "Guidelines" now contains that branch, rather than the original trunk? c) When I first tried to do a git commit, it wanted my email address and name, even though I suspect I could have said anything here, because when I later on did a "git log", the email address shown for my earlier commits is nonexistent. Of course the first thing I want to do after my successful commit is to run make. This (the Makefile) needed tweaking to say"git" rather than "svn" as value for VCS, but with that change, I think I have got to the same dtd-related brickwall as earlier in the month. I looked quickly at the README which seems clear enough (I do now understand why you chaps say git is so much better for branches than svn). You might perhaps mention that "git log" at the unix command line puts you into an editor of sorts: it's handy to know that you can do q to exit, type a regexp, etc. . On 30/08/15 14:38, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could try:
git clone https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git>
cd Guidelines
git checkout P5-Pure
copy your changes into Guidelines/ in the right spot.
If you have any new files:
git add path/to/new/file
git commit -am "What I did on my summer vacation."
git push origin P5-Pure
All done! See also https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md> and let me know where it fails to elucidate what’s going on.
Basically, git clone == svn checkout; git add == svn add; git commit + git push == svn commit. The main difference being that you have a full copy of the repo locally, so you have an extra step of syncing your local repo with the remote repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 11:56 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
You know those cartoons where the human is talking to the cat? and the cat hears only the word "food"? "clone", "commit and push" don't mean a lot to the unregenerate svn user.
On 29/08/15 16:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-)
Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
Like Lou, I'm feeling like a cat. Will this same process work for me to merge the changes that have occured in .../trunk/P5/ to .../branches/P5/for-xenoData/? (I had hoped to do that earlier today and put <xenoData> on the agenda for tomorrow's call, but I hadn't realized we weren't still using SF until I read this thread.) I'd try it now, but I'm getting pretty tired ...
It should, except that the way you had your branches set up meant the Git branch came over as P5, which contains a directory "for-xenodata". That means your directory structure won’t quite be in parallel and merging will be difficult. I’d be inclined to set up a new branch sydb-xenodata* and then copy your stuff into that. If the directories are all parallel, then merging can happen cleanly. What will happen now if you merge back into master is that master will end up with an extra for-xenodata directory in it. *We’d talked about designating personal branches like this so that other people know who’s working on them. Does this still seem like a good idea?
On Aug 30, 2015, at 20:21 , Syd Bauman <syd@paramedic.wwp.neu.edu> wrote:
Like Lou, I'm feeling like a cat. Will this same process work for me to merge the changes that have occured in .../trunk/P5/ to .../branches/P5/for-xenoData/? (I had hoped to do that earlier today and put <xenoData> on the agenda for tomorrow's call, but I hadn't realized we weren't still using SF until I read this thread.)
I'd try it now, but I'm getting pretty tired ... -- 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
On Aug 30, 2015, at 12:53 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@RETIRED.OX.AC.UK> wrote:
Thanks -- that's very helpful.
I tried it, and have only few very minor problems to report:
a) Why does it insist on calling my working copy "Guidelines" ? Can I rename it to something else?
You can rename the directory anything you like. Martin had mentioned wanting to change the repo name, and we certainly can. What should we call it?
b) After my git checkout P5-Pure it says:
Branch P5-Pure set up to track remote branch P5-Pure from origin. Switched to a new branch 'P5-Pure'
but how do I remember that the folder called "Guidelines" now contains that branch, rather than the original trunk?
The thing to do is run "git status" which will tell you what branch you’re on and what the state of your repo is currently. If you do accidentally commit something to the wrong branch, it’s fixable (harder if you’ve already pushed your changes, but fixable even then). To get the master branch, just do git checkout master It will whine at you if you have uncommitted changes, which can be dealt with in a couple of ways, the simplest being just to commit them.
c) When I first tried to do a git commit, it wanted my email address and name, even though I suspect I could have said anything here, because when I later on did a "git log", the email address shown for my earlier commits is nonexistent.
I didn’t think about this, but the first time you use Git, you should set up your name and address, thus: git config --global user.name "John Doe" git config --global user.email johndoe@example.com (using your own email and name, obviously, see https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-First-Time-Git-Setup)
Of course the first thing I want to do after my successful commit is to run make. This (the Makefile) needed tweaking to say"git" rather than "svn" as value for VCS, but with that change, I think I have got to the same dtd-related brickwall as earlier in the month.
I looked quickly at the README which seems clear enough (I do now understand why you chaps say git is so much better for branches than svn).
You might perhaps mention that "git log" at the unix command line puts you into an editor of sorts: it's handy to know that you can do q to exit, type a regexp, etc.
Yeah, that’s a good point. I think it uses less, or some similar pager, so you can browse around in the log instead of having to pipe it into a reader. I’ve added it to the README.
.
On 30/08/15 14:38, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could try:
git clone https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git>
cd Guidelines
git checkout P5-Pure
copy your changes into Guidelines/ in the right spot.
If you have any new files:
git add path/to/new/file
git commit -am "What I did on my summer vacation."
git push origin P5-Pure
All done! See also https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md <https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines-TEST/blob/master/README.md> and let me know where it fails to elucidate what’s going on.
Basically, git clone == svn checkout; git add == svn add; git commit + git push == svn commit. The main difference being that you have a full copy of the repo locally, so you have an extra step of syncing your local repo with the remote repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 11:56 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
You know those cartoons where the human is talking to the cat? and the cat hears only the word "food"? "clone", "commit and push" don't mean a lot to the unregenerate svn user.
On 29/08/15 16:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
You could just clone the git repo, checkout the pure branch, copy your changes over, commit and push :-)
Happy to help if you need advice on doing so. It’d be a good test of the new repo.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:30 , Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/15 14:17, 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.
OK that is reassuring, but still a bit annoying if (like me) you have just come back from a month offline with a bunch of changes you'd like to be able to commit to a SF repo branch for testing !
-- 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
-- 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
OK, so I tried to check a new file into my P5-Pure branch and it told me to "use the new location" lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git push origin P5-Pure Username for 'https://github.com': lb42 Password for 'https://lb42@github.com': Counting objects: 22, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (5/5), done. Writing objects: 100% (5/5), 1.16 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done. Total 5 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: This repository moved. Please use the new location: remote: https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git To https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git 17dfde6..d692839 P5-Pure -> P5-Pure lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ um....
You want to do: git remote --set-url origin https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git I blame James. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
OK, so I tried to check a new file into my P5-Pure branch and it told me to "use the new location"
lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git push origin P5-Pure Username for 'https://github.com': lb42 Password for 'https://lb42@github.com': Counting objects: 22, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (5/5), done. Writing objects: 100% (5/5), 1.16 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done. Total 5 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: This repository moved. Please use the new location: remote: https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git To https://github.com/TEIC/Guidelines.git 17dfde6..d692839 P5-Pure -> P5-Pure lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$
um....
-- 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
Thanks! tho I cannot help gloating a little over the fact that you are as prone to confusion with the syntax as we lesser mortals... lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git remote --set-url --add origin https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git error: unknown option `set-url' usage: git remote [-v | --verbose] or: git remote add [-t <branch>] [-m <master>] [-f] [--tags|--no-tags] [--mirror=<fetch|push>] <name> <url> or: git remote rename <old> <new> or: git remote remove <name> or: git remote set-head <name> (-a | --auto | -d | --delete |<branch>) or: git remote [-v | --verbose] show [-n] <name> or: git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] <name> or: git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [(<group> | <remote>)...] or: git remote set-branches [--add] <name> <branch>... or: git remote set-url [--push] <name> <newurl> [<oldurl>] or: git remote set-url --add <name> <newurl> or: git remote set-url --delete <name> <url> -v, --verbose be verbose; must be placed before a subcommand lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git remote set-url --add origin https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git push origin P5-Pure Username for 'https://github.com': lb42 Password for 'https://lb42@github.com': Everything up-to-date lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ I'm still confused though. If it;s now up-to-date, does that mean the previous attempt succeeded? Could someone please check out the P5-Pure branch, and see whether it contains a file Utilities/dtdMagic.xsl tx On 31/08/15 18:57, Hugh Cayless wrote:
git remote --set-url originhttps://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git
Oh, yeah. Set-url doesn't want the "--" before it. D'oh! On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
Thanks! tho I cannot help gloating a little over the fact that you are as prone to confusion with the syntax as we lesser mortals...
lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git remote --set-url --add origin https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git error: unknown option `set-url' usage: git remote [-v | --verbose] or: git remote add [-t <branch>] [-m <master>] [-f] [--tags|--no-tags] [--mirror=<fetch|push>] <name> <url> or: git remote rename <old> <new> or: git remote remove <name> or: git remote set-head <name> (-a | --auto | -d | --delete |<branch>) or: git remote [-v | --verbose] show [-n] <name> or: git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] <name> or: git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [(<group> | <remote>)...] or: git remote set-branches [--add] <name> <branch>... or: git remote set-url [--push] <name> <newurl> [<oldurl>] or: git remote set-url --add <name> <newurl> or: git remote set-url --delete <name> <url>
-v, --verbose be verbose; must be placed before a subcommand
lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git remote set-url --add origin https://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$ git push origin P5-Pure Username for 'https://github.com': lb42 Password for 'https://lb42@github.com': Everything up-to-date lou@Thimk:~/Public/Guidelines$
I'm still confused though. If it;s now up-to-date, does that mean the previous attempt succeeded?
Could someone please check out the P5-Pure branch, and see whether it contains a file Utilities/dtdMagic.xsl
tx
On 31/08/15 18:57, Hugh Cayless wrote:
git remote --set-url originhttps://github.com/TEIC/TEI.git
-- 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
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 <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/>>
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>> 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
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? -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 <philomousos@gmail.com> 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?
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
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 <philomousos@gmail.com> 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?
OK, P5 builds on Jenkins: <http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/P5/> What I truly don't understand is that it says in the footer of the Guidelines pages: TEI Guidelines Version 2.8.1a. Last updated on 15th August 2015, revision 13328. This page generated on 2015-08-26T14:02:29Z. How on earth is it coming up with an svn revision number? It breaks my oxygen-tei build, which is expecting to find its products in a slightly different place due to the top-level checkout of trunk rather than just P5. So: should I continue re-jigging my Jenkins to handle these issues, or should I set it back to using SF/Subversion for the moment? Cheers, Martin On 15-08-26 12:09 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
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 <philomousos@gmail.com> 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?
If I had to guess, I'd say it had something to do with the reorganized directory structure. Maybe it's still picking up the old svn info file instead of the git one? Sent from my phone.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 17:44, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
OK, P5 builds on Jenkins:
<http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/P5/>
What I truly don't understand is that it says in the footer of the Guidelines pages:
TEI Guidelines Version 2.8.1a. Last updated on 15th August 2015, revision 13328. This page generated on 2015-08-26T14:02:29Z.
How on earth is it coming up with an svn revision number?
It breaks my oxygen-tei build, which is expecting to find its products in a slightly different place due to the top-level checkout of trunk rather than just P5.
So: should I continue re-jigging my Jenkins to handle these issues, or should I set it back to using SF/Subversion for the moment?
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-26 12:09 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
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 <philomousos@gmail.com> 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?
-- 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
I nuked the workspace before starting. I'll do it again just in case, though. :-). Cheers, Martin On 15-08-26 03:08 PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd say it had something to do with the reorganized directory structure. Maybe it's still picking up the old svn info file instead of the git one?
Sent from my phone.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 17:44, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
OK, P5 builds on Jenkins:
<http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/P5/>
What I truly don't understand is that it says in the footer of the Guidelines pages:
TEI Guidelines Version 2.8.1a. Last updated on 15th August 2015, revision 13328. This page generated on 2015-08-26T14:02:29Z.
How on earth is it coming up with an svn revision number?
It breaks my oxygen-tei build, which is expecting to find its products in a slightly different place due to the top-level checkout of trunk rather than just P5.
So: should I continue re-jigging my Jenkins to handle these issues, or should I set it back to using SF/Subversion for the moment?
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-26 12:09 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
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 <philomousos@gmail.com> 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?
-- 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
participants (5)
-
Hugh Cayless -
James Cummings -
Lou Burnard -
Martin Holmes -
Syd Bauman