Mailing List Archive: Request Tracker: Devel

Conversion to git

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

alexmv at bestpractical

Jun 24, 2009, 12:20 PM

Post #1 of 3 (567 views)
Permalink

Conversion to git

Heya,
We've currently planning on shifting RT's repository from Subversion
to Git. I've completed a preliminary version of the conversion, and
have made it available via github[1]. Feedback is apprciated; since
this is temporary home for it, though, don't get too attached to any
clones you make of it.
- Alex

[1] http://github.com/alexmv/rt-temporary-preview/

_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel

elacour at easter-eggs

Jun 25, 2009, 10:35 PM

Post #2 of 3 (498 views)
Permalink

Re: Conversion to git [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:20:14PM -0400, Alex Vandiver wrote:
> Heya,
> We've currently planning on shifting RT's repository from Subversion
> to Git. I've completed a preliminary version of the conversion, and
> have made it available via github[1]. Feedback is apprciated; since
> this is temporary home for it, though, don't get too attached to any
> clones you make of it.
>

nice to hear we are close to switch to git :)

I had a look, everythink seems ok, branch are there as well as tags. Log
is ok if we change from one branch to another.

seems you did a good conversion ;)

just one thing, don't you think, that naming branches just by the
release number should be enough (without "-trunk") ?
_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel

alexmv at bestpractical

Jun 28, 2009, 10:50 AM

Post #3 of 3 (482 views)
Permalink

Re: Conversion to git [In reply to]

Heya,
I've updated http://github.com/alexmv/rt-final-preview to include older
history culled from CVS and Aegis repositories, so we now have unbroken
commit history stretching back into 1997.

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 07:35 +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> just one thing, don't you think, that naming branches just by the
> release number should be enough (without "-trunk") ?

I think it helps distinguish them from the tag names a bit, but there's
no particularly strong reason for the naming scheme.
- Alex

_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com