re item (5):
The current svn tree can be set as read-only and serve as a reference for
old commit numbers.
It is rarery used anyway to search through historic commit numbers and can
be done in read-only historic tree.
All other items can use svn interface of guthub and stay w/o any change.
It is pretty minor change (mostly mental) and pretty big gain
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > That's pretty clever, actually (SVN and git effectively together in the
> same repo). Cool!
> > However, migrating to git has all the same problems that I mentioned in
> the prior email to you. Is Mellanox volunteering to do all the work for
> I guess I should clarify -- here's what I previously sent to Mike in an
> off-list email about converting our main SVN repo to something else (e.g.,
> Mercurial or Git). #3 is probably moot if we entirely move to github, but
> it would be replaced with "migrate all existing users to github" (which is
> a fair amount of work, too).
> We have *many* discussions a year or two ago about making Mercurial the
> primary repo, not SVN, and ultimately rejected it. There's many issues
> 1. developer learning curve
> --> certainly not the biggest factor, but definitely a factor
> --> "rebase" would certainly be a big deal (so that people don't put back
> a million intermediate commits)
> 2. adapting all of OMPI's current scripting to use hg (or git)
> --> this is a fair amount of work
> 3. getting IU to host git instead of SVN
> --> they have a whole management system for SVN: users, permissions, etc.
> No such thing exists for git.
> 4. integrating Trac with git. Or migrating to a whole new bug tracker
> that supports git.
> --> this is an entire conversation in itself. Note that everyone hates
> 5. re-writing the SVN history to find all references to "rXXX" in commit
> messages and replace them with the relevant hg (git) unique commit hash
> --> someone would have to figure out how to script that
> So conversion would be a significant amount of work. Instead, we opted
> for our current modes of operation, which seem to be working well enough:
> - use the hg+svn or git+svn combo mechanisms to do actual development in
> hg/git and then push back up to svn when done
> - provide hg (and now git) official mirrors so that people can
> branch/clone from there, and then provide patches to commit when done with
> In short -- I agree with you: moving to 100% hg/git would be nice. But it
> would be a lot of work that no one was willing to spend the time to do.
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to:
> devel mailing list