Re: Git Migration: where to host the master repository

Hi Derek, On 2012-08-13, at 13:55, Derek Atkins wrote: > If nothing else it would > reduce my bandwitdh consumption significantly ;) Yes, I was thinking about this too :-) > I just still feel that the master repo should be on code, and that the > committers should be able to push there. Then

Re: Git Migration: where to host the master repository

Yawar Amin writes: > Folks, > > On 2012-08-13, at 9:31, Derek Atkins wrote: > >> We're still maintaining our server for email, wiki, build, docs, irc >> logs, etc. So we're already doing system maintenance, and moving to >> github doesn't really reduce the amount of configuration necessary. We

Re: Git Migration: where to host the master repository

Folks, On 2012-08-13, at 9:31, Derek Atkins wrote: > We're still maintaining our server for email, wiki, build, docs, irc > logs, etc. So we're already doing system maintenance, and moving to > github doesn't really reduce the amount of configuration necessary. We > would just need to add the

Re: First git based automated build

Hi, Geert Janssens writes: > On 13-08-12 00:47, Derek Atkins wrote: >> >> Geert, nice work. Glad we have that working. One step closer. > > The only thing that still has to happen here is to activate git based > builds in daily_build.bat. Is it ok if I do so (only for trunk > obviously) ? For

Re: Git Migration: where to host the master repository

John Ralls writes: > I actually agree with Christian here, simply because while I > appreciate Derek's efforts to maintain access, large hosting > operations in large data centers like Github, Sourceforge, or even > Gnome have better uptime than Derek's house. I'll just point out that SourceForg

Re: Git Migration: where to host the master repository

Christian Stimming writes: >> Any chance we could rename this "Git Migration" instead of "Github >> Migration"? I don't think we will ever full migrate fully to github. I >> just think it's a bad idea to let go of master. > > Actually this point is one where IMHO there is not a consensus about

Re: Automated win32 build scripts and UPDATE_SOURCES, packaging dir, ...

Geert Janssens writes: > So suppose we drop the separate packaging directory requirement, then > the svn update would in one go update the build scripts and the source > to build, still automatically at each run. There would be no need > anymore for an UPDATE_SOURCES in the install.sh script. Ye

Re: First git based automated build

On 13-08-12 00:47, Derek Atkins wrote: Geert, nice work. Glad we have that working. One step closer. The only thing that still has to happen here is to activate git based builds in daily_build.bat. Is it ok if I do so (only for trunk obviously) ? John, I see only two reasonable options, githu

Re: Backport policy; was: svn - git sync stopped working ?

On 10-08-12 09:49, Frank H. Ellenberger wrote: Am 05.08.2012 15:46, schrieb Geert Janssens: Hi Frank, Which commits do you think should get backported ? : After a long busy time I remembered my passphrase. ;-) When I watched configure.ac, I saw warlord backporting his change, while your Chang

Re: Git Migration: github with svn access

On 13-08-12 11:33, reubano wrote: reubano wrote On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: Reuben Cummings writes: Gnucash is following the Gnome patch submission practice. Gnome uses git, but not Github, and doesn't use pull requests (which are

Re: Git Migration: github with svn access

On 11-08-12 20:36, Derek Atkins wrote Any chance we could rename this "Git Migration" instead of "Github Migration"? I don't think we will ever full migrate fully to github. I just think it's a bad idea to let go of master. (I tried sending a message like this this morning but it doesn't appe

Re: Git Migration: github with svn access

reubano wrote > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Derek Atkins > wrote: >> Reuben Cummings writes: >> >> Gnucash is following the Gnome patch submission practice. Gnome uses git, >> but not Github, and >> doesn't use pull requests (which are actually design

Re: Git Migration: github with svn access

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > Reuben Cummings writes: > >> Yes, I figured the round-a-bout patch submission method is due to >> maintain svn compatibility. But that still doesn't answer my original >> question of a "time-frame for full github integration". A perfectly >>