[DISCUSS] Moving to Git

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Hey Team,

I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
mirroring and PR interaction support.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Tyler Palsulich
+1 from me.

Tyler
On Nov 18, 2015 6:46 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Team,
>
> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
> I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> mirroring and PR interaction support.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Bob Paulin-2
+1 from Me.  Most of my work today is also on Git.  Just to be clear we'd
be moving from an SVN workflow patch -> trunk to git workflow PR ->
master.  \
- Bob

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Tyler Palsulich <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 from me.
>
> Tyler
> On Nov 18, 2015 6:46 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hey Team,
> >
> > I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
> > I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> > mirroring and PR interaction support.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Chief Architect
> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > Email: [hidden email]
> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Thanks Bob. We don’t always have to do patches right now in Tika.
Use CTR if it’s a new area of the code base, and/or if you feel
reasonable about it being a small enough change to go ahead. Use
RTC If you’d like a review and your peers to look at it - if it’s
a long standing area of the code base, etc etc.

So either way is fine with me and yes, we’d be moving into that
type of workflow. I don’t see getting rid of JIRA though - for
example this workflow:

https://github.com/apache/tika/#contributing-via-github


is what I was thinking just instead of the last (not shown) steps
being e.g.,

git apply < http://github.com/apache/tika/pull/#.patch
svn add *
svn commit

something instead being

git pull http://github.com/user/tika/branch
git push -u origin master

where origin are the ASF writeable repos.

HTH!

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Paulin <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

>+1 from Me.  Most of my work today is also on Git.  Just to be clear we'd
>be moving from an SVN workflow patch -> trunk to git workflow PR ->
>master.  \
>- Bob
>
>On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Tyler Palsulich <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Tyler
>> On Nov 18, 2015 6:46 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Team,
>> >
>> > I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
>> > I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
>> > mirroring and PR interaction support.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> > Chief Architect
>> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>> > Email: [hidden email]
>> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Bob Paulin-2
Chris,

This makes sense to me.  I think with git there's a lot of different ways
to do things so I think as long as we have a documented way of getting
patches from the community that's what's important.  Thanks!

- Bob

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks Bob. We don’t always have to do patches right now in Tika.
> Use CTR if it’s a new area of the code base, and/or if you feel
> reasonable about it being a small enough change to go ahead. Use
> RTC If you’d like a review and your peers to look at it - if it’s
> a long standing area of the code base, etc etc.
>
> So either way is fine with me and yes, we’d be moving into that
> type of workflow. I don’t see getting rid of JIRA though - for
> example this workflow:
>
> https://github.com/apache/tika/#contributing-via-github
>
>
> is what I was thinking just instead of the last (not shown) steps
> being e.g.,
>
> git apply < http://github.com/apache/tika/pull/#.patch
> svn add *
> svn commit
>
> something instead being
>
> git pull http://github.com/user/tika/branch
> git push -u origin master
>
> where origin are the ASF writeable repos.
>
> HTH!
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Paulin <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git
>
> >+1 from Me.  Most of my work today is also on Git.  Just to be clear we'd
> >be moving from an SVN workflow patch -> trunk to git workflow PR ->
> >master.  \
> >- Bob
> >
> >On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Tyler Palsulich <[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1 from me.
> >>
> >> Tyler
> >> On Nov 18, 2015 6:46 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Team,
> >> >
> >> > I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
> >> > I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> >> > mirroring and PR interaction support.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> >> > Chief Architect
> >> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> >> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> >> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> >> > Email: [hidden email]
> >> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> >> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Tom Barber
There isn't a process on this earth that Chris doesn't have a document
for.....

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Bob Paulin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> This makes sense to me.  I think with git there's a lot of different ways
> to do things so I think as long as we have a documented way of getting
> patches from the community that's what's important.  Thanks!
>
> - Bob
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Bob. We don’t always have to do patches right now in Tika.
> > Use CTR if it’s a new area of the code base, and/or if you feel
> > reasonable about it being a small enough change to go ahead. Use
> > RTC If you’d like a review and your peers to look at it - if it’s
> > a long standing area of the code base, etc etc.
> >
> > So either way is fine with me and yes, we’d be moving into that
> > type of workflow. I don’t see getting rid of JIRA though - for
> > example this workflow:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/tika/#contributing-via-github
> >
> >
> > is what I was thinking just instead of the last (not shown) steps
> > being e.g.,
> >
> > git apply < http://github.com/apache/tika/pull/#.patch
> > svn add *
> > svn commit
> >
> > something instead being
> >
> > git pull http://github.com/user/tika/branch
> > git push -u origin master
> >
> > where origin are the ASF writeable repos.
> >
> > HTH!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Chief Architect
> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > Email: [hidden email]
> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Paulin <[hidden email]>
> > Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM
> > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git
> >
> > >+1 from Me.  Most of my work today is also on Git.  Just to be clear
> we'd
> > >be moving from an SVN workflow patch -> trunk to git workflow PR ->
> > >master.  \
> > >- Bob
> > >
> > >On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Tyler Palsulich <[hidden email]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 from me.
> > >>
> > >> Tyler
> > >> On Nov 18, 2015 6:46 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
> > >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hey Team,
> > >> >
> > >> > I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our
> repository.
> > >> > I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using
> the
> > >> > mirroring and PR interaction support.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thoughts?
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> > Chris
> > >> >
> > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > >> > Chief Architect
> > >> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > >> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > >> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > >> > Email: [hidden email]
> > >> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > >> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Nick Burch-2
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository. I
> mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> mirroring and PR interaction support.

I'm -0 on this at the moment

Having followed other Apache lists, it seems that there's quite a few ways
to use Git, not all of them compatible with the Apache way, and some of
them easy to do wrong.

Were we to have some proposed guidelines/information/rules on using Git
for Tika, such as about what branches squashing might be permitted on,
rules for that, information/rules on remote branches, how to handle / when
to use / not-use private branches and github branches, and the like, then
I'd be minded to change my vote

I'm also wondering how it would work with the website pulling in bits of
the Tika Examples module from SVN for the examples page? That currently
uses a svn:externals, so we can keep the code in a normal module + unit
test it, then pulls in snippets, how would that work if the code moved to
git?

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Hong-Thai Nguyen-3
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
+1 for me

Thanks,

HT

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Team,
>
> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
> I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> mirroring and PR interaction support.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>


--
---------------------------
Hong-Thai NGUYEN
Tel.: 06 27 04 86 22
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Nick Burch-2
Hey Nick,

Git has something similar to svn:externals:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/571232/svnexternals-equivalent-in-git


I’ve seen both used in the same way. Also the examples site code
is something we could always gin up a script solution to and isn’t
a blocker by any means - it’s a smallish portion of the overall
process and even if it had to be done by hand it’s something we don’t
do often enough for it to be a real burden. I can speak from experience
having done most or all of Tika’s releases.

As to the discussions of what’s going on with Git/Github/version
control, etc., the use of writeable Git repositories at the ASF
has been sanctioned and used pervasively for years. That Git/Github
/version control *policy* discussion is pretty independent of using
the ASF’s own sanctioned writeable git repos on ASF hardware, which
is all I’m proposing to do. AKA I’m proposing we move Tika’s
canonical repo from:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tika/

TO:

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/tika.git

Infra has put policies (temporarily) in place to deal with any of
the branching issues that have shown up etc. So there is already
enforcement and so on. And like I said, the ASF has allowed writeable
Git repos for many years now.

Finally it seems like there is good support so far for this, so
I’ll keep collecting feedback before calling an official vote maybe
in the next few days. I’m really hoping there is really no big
difference other than replacing svn co with git clone and replacing
svn commit with git commit && git push in most places. One last note:
many of the “issues” brought up on other projects or being discussed
at a Foundation policy level are issues e.g., with the Incubator,
some with newer (ish) TLPs that have arisen over the past few years
and that are pushing the boundaries on how to use Git in ways that
are forcing the foundation to ask questions at its core policy
levels. That discussion is ongoing. Tika has been around since 2007,
includes a strong set of ASF members, has seen the version control
debates over the years and long since survived them, etc. I see no
evidence and an extremely low probability that we will use writeable
ASF git repos in any such way that drives the policy at the foundation
level in the same way.

Instead, I see pretty boring use of Git writeable repos to become
more consistent with the way it seems like more and more of us are
doing development (even today with Tika).

HTH.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Burch <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:44 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

>On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
>> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository. I
>> mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
>> mirroring and PR interaction support.
>
>I'm -0 on this at the moment
>
>Having followed other Apache lists, it seems that there's quite a few
>ways
>to use Git, not all of them compatible with the Apache way, and some of
>them easy to do wrong.
>
>Were we to have some proposed guidelines/information/rules on using Git
>for Tika, such as about what branches squashing might be permitted on,
>rules for that, information/rules on remote branches, how to handle /
>when
>to use / not-use private branches and github branches, and the like, then
>I'd be minded to change my vote
>
>I'm also wondering how it would work with the website pulling in bits of
>the Tika Examples module from SVN for the examples page? That currently
>uses a svn:externals, so we can keep the code in a normal module + unit
>test it, then pulls in snippets, how would that work if the code moved to
>git?
>
>Nick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Oleg Tikhonov-2
+1.
There is a bunch of add-ons. For instance - git flow.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Nick,
>
> Git has something similar to svn:externals:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/571232/svnexternals-equivalent-in-git
>
>
> I’ve seen both used in the same way. Also the examples site code
> is something we could always gin up a script solution to and isn’t
> a blocker by any means - it’s a smallish portion of the overall
> process and even if it had to be done by hand it’s something we don’t
> do often enough for it to be a real burden. I can speak from experience
> having done most or all of Tika’s releases.
>
> As to the discussions of what’s going on with Git/Github/version
> control, etc., the use of writeable Git repositories at the ASF
> has been sanctioned and used pervasively for years. That Git/Github
> /version control *policy* discussion is pretty independent of using
> the ASF’s own sanctioned writeable git repos on ASF hardware, which
> is all I’m proposing to do. AKA I’m proposing we move Tika’s
> canonical repo from:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tika/
>
> TO:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/tika.git
>
> Infra has put policies (temporarily) in place to deal with any of
> the branching issues that have shown up etc. So there is already
> enforcement and so on. And like I said, the ASF has allowed writeable
> Git repos for many years now.
>
> Finally it seems like there is good support so far for this, so
> I’ll keep collecting feedback before calling an official vote maybe
> in the next few days. I’m really hoping there is really no big
> difference other than replacing svn co with git clone and replacing
> svn commit with git commit && git push in most places. One last note:
> many of the “issues” brought up on other projects or being discussed
> at a Foundation policy level are issues e.g., with the Incubator,
> some with newer (ish) TLPs that have arisen over the past few years
> and that are pushing the boundaries on how to use Git in ways that
> are forcing the foundation to ask questions at its core policy
> levels. That discussion is ongoing. Tika has been around since 2007,
> includes a strong set of ASF members, has seen the version control
> debates over the years and long since survived them, etc. I see no
> evidence and an extremely low probability that we will use writeable
> ASF git repos in any such way that drives the policy at the foundation
> level in the same way.
>
> Instead, I see pretty boring use of Git writeable repos to become
> more consistent with the way it seems like more and more of us are
> doing development (even today with Tika).
>
> HTH.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Burch <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:44 AM
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git
>
> >On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
> >> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository. I
> >> mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> >> mirroring and PR interaction support.
> >
> >I'm -0 on this at the moment
> >
> >Having followed other Apache lists, it seems that there's quite a few
> >ways
> >to use Git, not all of them compatible with the Apache way, and some of
> >them easy to do wrong.
> >
> >Were we to have some proposed guidelines/information/rules on using Git
> >for Tika, such as about what branches squashing might be permitted on,
> >rules for that, information/rules on remote branches, how to handle /
> >when
> >to use / not-use private branches and github branches, and the like, then
> >I'd be minded to change my vote
> >
> >I'm also wondering how it would work with the website pulling in bits of
> >the Tika Examples module from SVN for the examples page? That currently
> >uses a svn:externals, so we can keep the code in a normal module + unit
> >test it, then pulls in snippets, how would that work if the code moved to
> >git?
> >
> >Nick
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Nick Burch-2
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
> Git has something similar to svn:externals:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/571232/svnexternals-equivalent-in-git

Good to know

> I’ve seen both used in the same way. Also the examples site code
> is something we could always gin up a script solution to and isn’t
> a blocker by any means

Guess it depends on if we move the website over as well to git, or leave
it as svn?


> As to the discussions of what’s going on with Git/Github/version
> control, etc., the use of writeable Git repositories at the ASF
> has been sanctioned and used pervasively for years. That Git/Github
> /version control *policy* discussion is pretty independent of using
> the ASF’s own sanctioned writeable git repos on ASF hardware, which
> is all I’m proposing to do.

I know it's allowed! I've just also seen lots of things about how it can
be done wrong, either deliberately or accidently, and I don't want Tika
having that issue too. I haven't used Git at the ASF enough to be sure
what we should or shouldn't be doing, so I think having that written down
by our git experts first would be good for everyone like me!

> Infra has put policies (temporarily) in place to deal with any of
> the branching issues that have shown up etc. So there is already
> enforcement and so on.

Once that's relaxed, we'll want our own rules about when, where and
if-ever that's allowed, so everyone knows!

Additionally, on the github side, quite a few people currently have their
own github mirrors of Tika with branches in that which aren't held in SVN.
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to get a policy
written down on when those need to be pushed into the ASF git master, what
happens when they are etc


> Finally it seems like there is good support so far for this, so
> I’ll keep collecting feedback before calling an official vote maybe
> in the next few days. I’m really hoping there is really no big
> difference other than replacing svn co with git clone and replacing
> svn commit with git commit && git push in most places.

I agree, for simple stuff it should be a small change. It's the less
simple stuff I'd rather we got right first, rather than doing wrong and
having to unpick later! Especially as we bring in new committers, it's a
lot easier if they can refer to somewhere to see our rules. (Even if it is
a short wiki page that just says "don't" against a long list of things!)

Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Hey Nick,

I’ll be happy to update our docs and to write a wiki page
on using Tika & Git that we can refer folks to. I think I’ve
demonstrated documenting things on the Tika wiki :)

Fair enough?

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Burch <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:33 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

>On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
>> Git has something similar to svn:externals:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/571232/svnexternals-equivalent-in-git
>
>Good to know
>
>> I’ve seen both used in the same way. Also the examples site code
>> is something we could always gin up a script solution to and isn’t
>> a blocker by any means
>
>Guess it depends on if we move the website over as well to git, or leave
>it as svn?
>
>
>> As to the discussions of what’s going on with Git/Github/version
>> control, etc., the use of writeable Git repositories at the ASF
>> has been sanctioned and used pervasively for years. That Git/Github
>> /version control *policy* discussion is pretty independent of using
>> the ASF’s own sanctioned writeable git repos on ASF hardware, which
>> is all I’m proposing to do.
>
>I know it's allowed! I've just also seen lots of things about how it can
>be done wrong, either deliberately or accidently, and I don't want Tika
>having that issue too. I haven't used Git at the ASF enough to be sure
>what we should or shouldn't be doing, so I think having that written down
>by our git experts first would be good for everyone like me!
>
>> Infra has put policies (temporarily) in place to deal with any of
>> the branching issues that have shown up etc. So there is already
>> enforcement and so on.
>
>Once that's relaxed, we'll want our own rules about when, where and
>if-ever that's allowed, so everyone knows!
>
>Additionally, on the github side, quite a few people currently have their
>own github mirrors of Tika with branches in that which aren't held in
>SVN.
>I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to get a
>policy
>written down on when those need to be pushed into the ASF git master,
>what
>happens when they are etc
>
>
>> Finally it seems like there is good support so far for this, so
>> I’ll keep collecting feedback before calling an official vote maybe
>> in the next few days. I’m really hoping there is really no big
>> difference other than replacing svn co with git clone and replacing
>> svn commit with git commit && git push in most places.
>
>I agree, for simple stuff it should be a small change. It's the less
>simple stuff I'd rather we got right first, rather than doing wrong and
>having to unpick later! Especially as we bring in new committers, it's a
>lot easier if they can refer to somewhere to see our rules. (Even if it
>is
>a short wiki page that just says "don't" against a long list of things!)
>
>Nick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

David Meikle
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Hey,

> On 18 Nov 2015, at 14:46, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hey Team,
>
> I propose we move to writeable git repos for Tika for our repository.
> I mostly interact with Git & Github nowadays even with Tika using the
> mirroring and PR interaction support.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris

+1 from me.

Cheers,
Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git

Nick Burch-2
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
> I’ll be happy to update our docs and to write a wiki page on using Tika
> & Git that we can refer folks to. I think I’ve demonstrated documenting
> things on the Tika wiki :)

Great stuff! Scribble something sensible down, and I can vote +1 to the
move, plus learn more about Git at the same time :)

Nick