On Nov 13, 2013 12:45 AM, "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > > Am 11/12/2013 10:38 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 11/12/2013 08:12 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti<pesce...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Herbert Duerr wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12.11.2013 16:48, janI wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @herbert, if nobody objects will you reopen the ticket, or should I ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have reopened the JIRA issue and requested a read-only mirror for now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And what would be the advantage for real contributors in having a >>>>> read-only >>>>> GIT mirror? The complaints I've seen so far are mostly in the other >>>>> direction (i.e., committing or applying patches). I'm not talking about >>>>> generic advantages of GIT: everybody here can be assumed to have a good >>>>> working knowledge of both SVN and GIT. What concrete problems does a >>>>> read-only GIT mirror solve in our case? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not at all against it, but I'd just like to make sure that a >>>>> read-only >>>>> GIT mirror brings enough concrete advantages, since many GIT niceties >>>>> (local >>>>> commits, proper attribution, quick application of patches) are still left >>>>> out or significantly limited with this approach. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, you can find discussions about GIT everywhere at Apache, >>>>> there's >>>>> even a Github account https://github.com/apache and lots of suggestions >>>>> like >>>>> adopting the newly-released Apache Allura (Incubating) GIT (and more) >>>>> hosting environment. As far as I know, there have been very significant >>>>> updates in the GIT support at Apache in the last few weeks and I hope >>>>> that >>>>> this is soon summarized in a blog post at http://blogs.apache.org/infra/ >>>>> or >>>>> reflected in the documentation at http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html. So >>>>> >>>>> this is a good moment to start considering GIT again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We should consider the website as well. Does the CMS have hooks that >>>> work with git repositories as well? Or would we need to keep the >>>> website in SVN? >>> >>> >>> >>> Good point. This has to be clarified as we don't want to keep our website >>> volunteers outside just because the CMS system doesn't support Git. To let >>> everybody of them commit via CLI or GUI tools wouldn't be nice. >>> >> >> But if it is an issue then one solution could be to move the product >> source to git and keep the websites in SVN. We're generally not >> dealing with multiple complex branches for the website, so the >> advantages of git here are less. > > > Sure, to split the things when it makes sense is also an option.
to be sure I mailed infra@ and got this reply: " Simply put, no. All sites *must* remain in SVN. The CMS is actually built around SVN, it’s operations are SVN operations." to the question if cms can use git. rgds jan i > > > Marcus > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
