You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jmeter-dev@jakarta.apache.org by Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org> on 2005/01/05 14:06:09 UTC
[VOTE]Re: SVN migration
My own vote on it was going to be -1, for basically the same reason
everyone else voted +0. There is just no reason for us to want to move
to subversion.
But, since we're apparently not being given a choice, I suggest we move
to subversion after finalizing the 2.0 branch. Since branching and
tagging is different/problematic (using the eclipse plugin anyway), I'd
prefer to do a last merge from 2.0 => HEAD using CVS + eclipse, and then
we can move to subversion and figure out how to release 2.1.
I vote +1 on this.
-Mike
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 14:19, Peter Lin wrote:
> so the bottom line is we have to migrate off CVS to subversion. I'm
> pretty busy these days, but I'll try to make time to play with
> subversion in the next few weeks. my hesitation is primarily due to
> lack of experience and familiarity with subversion.
>
> I'm just stuck in the mud of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" :)
>
> peter
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:07:42 -0500, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I probably need to provide a bit more context :)
> >
> > The Infrastructure guys are looking to get us off CVS by some point. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if the ASF is 50% in SVN already. So trying to
> > avoid SVN is probably going to be increasingly hard as this year
> > progresses.
> >
> > The existing CVS repository would be migrated, with
> > tags/branches/comments all intact. Generally SVN on the client side is
> > exactly the same as CVS. Most of the commands are the same. The only
> > major difference is in tagging/branching; where the 'svn copy' command
> > is used. In SVN you don't usually tag/branch individual files, you
> > tag/branch the directory.
> >
> > Client-side support is good now. OS X binaries exist; the Eclipse
> > plugin works fine (though maybe not for tagging/branching; ymmv).
> > Intellij has a plugin and the next version will come with SVN plugged
> > in automatically.
> >
> > Most importantly, there are a lot of improvements over CVS.
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/ contains a description that is probably
> > better than my particular favourites.
> >
> > I'm happy to assist with the migration planning etc, though if there's
> > someone familiar with svn here already I'd prefer to let them handle
> > things. All that really means is organising thoughts on how to
> > structure the svn side of things (more on that later), sending the
> > request to the infra guys for a test version to look at and then
> > deciding if the test was good.
> >
> > Hen
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org>
Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: SVN migration
Posted by Peter Lin <wo...@gmail.com>.
like wise I'm -1 for the change, since it's a lot of work to switch
over. I still haven't had time to try out the subversion plugin for
eclipse. given a choice between being productive and developing or
spending lots of time re-organizing, I prefer to code.
I'm not set in stone or anything, just my own personal preference. I
understand it's a lot of work to maintain the infrastructure, so it's
up to everyone to reach a compromise.
peter
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:35:36 -0500, Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 13:52, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:06:09 -0500, Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > My own vote on it was going to be -1, for basically the same reason
> > > everyone else voted +0. There is just no reason for us to want to move
> > > to subversion.
> > >
> > > But, since we're apparently not being given a choice, I suggest we move
> > > to subversion after finalizing the 2.0 branch.
> >
> > I've got to watch my mouth here :) It's hard to make sure I'm not
> > pressurising or under-reporting an issue when I'm being a middleman.
> >
> > The choice is completely there. I need to reword my aim of getting
> > Jakarta into SVN this quarter to be the more realistic "getting all of
> > Jakarta to consider SVN this quarter". There are some gains on the
> > client-side, and some losses for tightly-focused IDE users (you lose
> > synchronise repository functionality in Eclipse for example).
>
> Then I will vote -1 on any switch until the subversion clients have at
> least the functionality of the cvs clients.
>
> > The
> > Infra guys have much more in the way of gains over losses, so from
> > their point of view it's a much easier choice.
> >
> > That said, if the subcommunity has absolutely no interest in moving,
> > it's a disservice if I make it look as though you're being pushed. I
> > assume the time will come in a year or so when the infrastructure
> > group start talking about wanting to get everyone out of CVS as there
> > are so few left (and CVS is already in a minority), but things can
> > wait until then.
> >
> > I'll start to maintain a list of "Want to stay in CVS for the near
> > future", and the general response on this thread suggests I should put
> > JMeter on it.
> >
> > Hen
> --
> Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org>
> Apache Software Foundation
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: SVN migration
Posted by Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 13:52, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:06:09 -0500, Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org> wrote:
> > My own vote on it was going to be -1, for basically the same reason
> > everyone else voted +0. There is just no reason for us to want to move
> > to subversion.
> >
> > But, since we're apparently not being given a choice, I suggest we move
> > to subversion after finalizing the 2.0 branch.
>
> I've got to watch my mouth here :) It's hard to make sure I'm not
> pressurising or under-reporting an issue when I'm being a middleman.
>
> The choice is completely there. I need to reword my aim of getting
> Jakarta into SVN this quarter to be the more realistic "getting all of
> Jakarta to consider SVN this quarter". There are some gains on the
> client-side, and some losses for tightly-focused IDE users (you lose
> synchronise repository functionality in Eclipse for example).
Then I will vote -1 on any switch until the subversion clients have at
least the functionality of the cvs clients.
> The
> Infra guys have much more in the way of gains over losses, so from
> their point of view it's a much easier choice.
>
> That said, if the subcommunity has absolutely no interest in moving,
> it's a disservice if I make it look as though you're being pushed. I
> assume the time will come in a year or so when the infrastructure
> group start talking about wanting to get everyone out of CVS as there
> are so few left (and CVS is already in a minority), but things can
> wait until then.
>
> I'll start to maintain a list of "Want to stay in CVS for the near
> future", and the general response on this thread suggests I should put
> JMeter on it.
>
> Hen
--
Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org>
Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: SVN migration
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:06:09 -0500, Michael Stover <ms...@apache.org> wrote:
> My own vote on it was going to be -1, for basically the same reason
> everyone else voted +0. There is just no reason for us to want to move
> to subversion.
>
> But, since we're apparently not being given a choice, I suggest we move
> to subversion after finalizing the 2.0 branch.
I've got to watch my mouth here :) It's hard to make sure I'm not
pressurising or under-reporting an issue when I'm being a middleman.
The choice is completely there. I need to reword my aim of getting
Jakarta into SVN this quarter to be the more realistic "getting all of
Jakarta to consider SVN this quarter". There are some gains on the
client-side, and some losses for tightly-focused IDE users (you lose
synchronise repository functionality in Eclipse for example). The
Infra guys have much more in the way of gains over losses, so from
their point of view it's a much easier choice.
That said, if the subcommunity has absolutely no interest in moving,
it's a disservice if I make it look as though you're being pushed. I
assume the time will come in a year or so when the infrastructure
group start talking about wanting to get everyone out of CVS as there
are so few left (and CVS is already in a minority), but things can
wait until then.
I'll start to maintain a list of "Want to stay in CVS for the near
future", and the general response on this thread suggests I should put
JMeter on it.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org