Am Freitag, den 08.05.2020, 11:03 +0200 schrieb Valentin Villenave: > On 5/8/20, Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > 3) The idea is to have the "main" repository at GitLab, next to the > > issues and merge requests. > > If the two are kept in sync (if and when you enable mirroring), does > that mean some of us can keep pushing onto Savannah without any > difference whatsoever?
The mirroring is directional, in our case from GitLab to Savannah, so no real synchronization. > (Except perhaps for the few minutes time-lag it’d take for commits to > propagate.) This is exactly the problem, for example with conflicting commits in the two master branches. I don't think we should risk this, the GitLab documentation explicitly states "Bidirectional mirroring may cause conflicts". What we could do is mirror a subset of the dev branches from Savannah to GitLab. Not sure how this could be used, but this would need a really compelling reason to warrant the complexity. > > Ultimately we can talk about cleaning up the Savannah repo and only > > keeping the "important" branches there. > > Counterpoint: unlike GitLab, Savannah 1/ has been around for a long > time and 2/ relies on a non-profit foundation with lots of volunteers > (although its resources are obviously stretched thin). This leads me > to believe (perhaps superstitiously) that Savannah may have a > marginally better chance of staying around for longer than GitLab; > thus removing "historical" branches from Savannah may come to bite us > in the ass in decades to come, in case GitLab goes suddenly bankrupt > or decides to cease Free-Software support or whatever. Granted, but how likely is it that a dev branch from 10 years ago will be of interest in a decade or so? In any case, we can export the project from gitlab.com to prevent loss if that is of concern. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
