|
From: Eric S. R. <es...@th...> - 2017-10-11 13:16:46
|
sfeam <sf...@us...>: > It looks to me that there is general consensus that > > - we should move to git, > > - that Eric Raymond's toolset is the best way to do that, and that > > - if Eric himself is willing to guide the conversion it has the greatest chance of success. > > So let's do that. This is a good time for me to do it. NTPsec 1.0 just shipped and our PM said he didn't want to see any commits for a week. :-) > Eric - several people responded with bits and pieces of meta-info that > you asked for. Do you have everything you need? Not yet. 1. Here's the committer map: janert = Philipp K. Janert <ja...@us...> uid225733 = Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu> uid93776 = Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu> mikulik = Petr Mikulik <mi...@ph...> markisch = Bastian Maerkisch <bma...@we...> tlecomte = Timothee Lecomte <tim...@en...> persquare = Per Persson <per...@us...> amai = Alexander Mai <am...@us...> lhecking = Lars Hecking <lhe...@us...> cgaylord = Clark Gaylord <cga...@vt...> uid26705 = Petr Mikulik <mi...@ph...> juhaszp = Peter Juhasz <ju...@us...> vanzandt = James R. Van Zandt <van...@us...> sfeam = Ethan Merritt <merritt@u.washington.edu> lodewyck = J´erˆome Lodewyck <lod...@us...> joze = Joze Duhovnik <jo...@us...> Ideally, we'd enhance this in two ways. First, those of you with preferred email addresses should make sure this points at the one you want. Second, we'd add timezone offsets. 2. If you want the authorship data to be right, somebody's going to have to write code to grovel through the ChangeLog(s) and generate date/author/filelist triples. (Then I'll have to write some custom Python to use those.) Though maybe this isn't worth it - the only ChangeLog I can see only seems to cover 1998-2000. 3. There was some talk of gluing to the history old releases that only exist as tarballs. That can be done, but I need those tarballs. 3. I'm not clear on what ought to be excised from the repo. HBBroeker mentions dropping the faq module. Someone else (I think Mojca) had a pre-conversion sript that stripped out some stuff. A set of excisions you guys agree on - ideally expressed as a pre-conversion script modifying the repo - is one thing we need. 4. The following paragraph from HBBroeker worries me a little: > I've tried out reposurgen on our repository (with the "faq" module > removed), and it seems to work almost perfectly. "make allcompare" > showed nothing missing from the git version. The original import > pseudo-branch GNUPLOT_BETA is, correctly, dropped, all other tags and > branch tips compare equal, and .cvsignore files are also taken care of. I didn't use reposurgeon, I used cvsconvert. This is a wrapper script in the reposurgeon distribution that also uses cvs-fast-export as an engine, but is specialized for CVS and does more detailed correctness checking than allcompare. What worries me is that *my* conversion didn't look quite so smooth - it was not clear that GNUPLOT_BETA was dropped, and there were some files on ther gitspace side that weren't in CVS (probably due to a botched CVS delete). This needs to be further investigated. > Do I understand correctly that the git repository can be created > initially anywhere that you find convenient and then replicated to > SourceForge afterwards? That understanding is correct. > Should we set a freeze date for the existing CVS source [*]? That's not important yet. Once I have the conversion process scripted, you can basically choose any time to cut over and it will all get done in a time on the close order of two hours. > Anything else that needs to be done in preparation? For the conversion itself, no. You guys need to make a hosting site decision, then I need to have push and force-push privileges so I can drop the git repo in place. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own. |