SVN migration (Was: Donation of JAXP 1.3 Sources to Apache)

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Neil Graham wrote:
> > 
> > So would this be an appropriate time to move the
> > xml-commons repository to SVN?
> 
> Well, I don't know about you, but I generally prefer to ease my way into 
> new software tools, rather than dive right into advanced usage.  So, 
> speaking for myself, I'd prefer to wait for a period of calm, where the 
> move to SVN would be the only change, rather than combine the move to SVN 
> with an update to most of the code in the xml-commons repository and 
> whatever tinkering with branches that this also might end up implying.

I was not intending that the two get tangled.
Either do the move before or after.

Just that when "legal delays" were mentioned,
i thought that there would be plenty of time.

Afterwards is fine by me. I was responding to the
infrastructure@a.o request to consider moving soon.

> I'd also be curious to know what proportion of Apache projects have 
> migrated to SVN so far?  There would be a significantly higher amount of 
> churn caused to the community by an SVN migration than was caused by our 
> earlier Jira migration; so I'd prefer to go down a well-trod path than be 
> on the bleeding edge in this particular instance.

Apache Forrest was one of the early ones to move.
The transition was a breeze and we love it now.
We are mainly using the trunk, with small experimental
branches which we merge early. Different to xml-commons.

-- 
David Crossley

Re: SVN migration (Was: Donation of JAXP 1.3 Sources to Apache)

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Neil Graham wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > 
> > I was not intending that the two get tangled.
> > Either do the move before or after.
> > 
> > Just that when "legal delays" were mentioned,
> > i thought that there would be plenty of time.
> 
> Can we be optimistic and hope not?  :)

Okay then, just this once :-)

> > Afterwards is fine by me. I was responding to the
> > infrastructure@a.o request to consider moving soon.
> 
> Guess this was only sent to folks subscribed to infrastructure@; I haven't 
> seen it on any list I'm subscribed to anyway. ...

Not only infrastructure, here too. There were a couple of
mentions earlier in the initial thread. Here is one:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-commons-dev&m=109775743126537

I agree with your sentiment though - infra@ should
announce more widely the general desire to move to SVN.

> ... Good to know that they 
> consider this set-up stable now; but if they really want to encourage 
> projects to migrate, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to (a) let them 
> know directly and (b) sell them on how worthwhile the pain will be.  I'm 
> sure the pain's worthwhile from my perspective; I'd just rather wait until 
> we're sure we're in a period of calm than embark on something now only to 
> discover next week that things will get complicated.

We definitely do not want to risk holding up the
JAXP update.

--David

> > Apache Forrest was one of the early ones to move.
> > The transition was a breeze and we love it now.
> 
> Cool! 
> 
> Cheers!
> Neil
> Neil Graham
> Manager, XML Parser Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
> Phone:  905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
> E-mail:  neilg@ca.ibm.com

Re: SVN migration (Was: Donation of JAXP 1.3 Sources to Apache)

[Neil Graham <ne...@ca.ibm.com>]

Hi David,

David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote on 10/20/2004 03:20:26 AM:

> Neil Graham wrote:
> > > 
> > > So would this be an appropriate time to move the
> > > xml-commons repository to SVN?
> > 
> > Well, I don't know about you, but I generally prefer to ease my way 
into 
> > new software tools, rather than dive right into advanced usage.  So, 
> > speaking for myself, I'd prefer to wait for a period of calm, where 
the 
> > move to SVN would be the only change, rather than combine the move to 
SVN 
> > with an update to most of the code in the xml-commons repository and 
> > whatever tinkering with branches that this also might end up implying.
> 
> I was not intending that the two get tangled.
> Either do the move before or after.
> 
> Just that when "legal delays" were mentioned,
> i thought that there would be plenty of time.

Can we be optimistic and hope not?  :)

> Afterwards is fine by me. I was responding to the
> infrastructure@a.o request to consider moving soon.

Guess this was only sent to folks subscribed to infrastructure@; I haven't 
seen it on any list I'm subscribed to anyway.  Good to know that they 
consider this set-up stable now; but if they really want to encourage 
projects to migrate, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to (a) let them 
know directly and (b) sell them on how worthwhile the pain will be.  I'm 
sure the pain's worthwhile from my perspective; I'd just rather wait until 
we're sure we're in a period of calm than embark on something now only to 
discover next week that things will get complicated.

> Apache Forrest was one of the early ones to move.
> The transition was a breeze and we love it now.

Cool! 

Cheers!
Neil
Neil Graham
Manager, XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone:  905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail:  neilg@ca.ibm.com