Mailing List Archive

Migrate to git?
Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...

Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)

Cheers!
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
Good grief. Yes! No-one uses svn these days. I can't even remember how to.
Literally everything I contribute to uses git.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 21:09, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
> years of this project :)
>
> Cheers!
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 05/10/2019 15.09, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>
> Cheers!
>

I'd be quite okay with this move - it was IIRC proposed a year or two
ago as well, but didn't gain much traction.

On a related note (sorry for the segue), we should probably also look at
the web site repo, perhaps split that into a separate git repo if we do
make the move, as the CMS system will go away at some point.
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 4:09 PM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>

+0.9. I assume this also means using GH issues for everything new and
for using normal PR reviews for backports instead of STATUS?
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
With my community development hat on, a big +1 even though I hate Git.

Shosholoza,
Rich


On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 16:09 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
> years of this project :)
>
> Cheers!
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
Yes! Yes! Do it!

-C

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 16:36 Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> With my community development hat on, a big +1 even though I hate Git.
>
> Shosholoza,
> Rich
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 16:09 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
>> increase in contributions and contributors...
>>
>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
>> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
>> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
>> years of this project :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>
>
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
Hello,

Although I am not precisely active now using the repos due to time
constraints I would also feel it would be a good move. So FWIW, +1 if
I may.

El sáb., 5 oct. 2019 a las 22:36, Rich Bowen (<rbowen@rcbowen.com>) escribió:
>
> With my community development hat on, a big +1 even though I hate Git.
>
> Shosholoza,
> Rich
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 16:09 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>>
>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>>
>> Cheers!



--
Daniel Ferradal
HTTPD Project
#httpd help at Freenode
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 21:09, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>
> Cheers!

[.apologies if this appears twice. Just sent with wrong from: address so I expect
apache to bounce it. I'm still on limited 'net connectivity since my house move -
ISP due on Oct 14th to install proper connection].

If it moves to github, how and at what level is history preserved? Github can do
alarming things with history even for a project that's always been there!

Don't we have an svn-git gateway? If that's not best-of-both-worlds, why not?

--
Nick Kew
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 10/5/19 8:30 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 21:09, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>>
>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> [.apologies if this appears twice. Just sent with wrong from: address so I expect
> apache to bounce it. I'm still on limited 'net connectivity since my house move -
> ISP due on Oct 14th to install proper connection].
>
> If it moves to github, how and at what level is history preserved? Github can do
> alarming things with history even for a project that's always been there!
>
> Don't we have an svn-git gateway? If that's not best-of-both-worlds, why not?
>

Call a vote such that we can all veto the idea. I could care less for a
git based repo within the Microsoft owned service. There is nothing
remotely wrong with subversion and "popular" is not a valid argument.
Madonna was popular also. So was Lawrence Welk.


--
Dennis Clarke
RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC
UNIX and Linux spoken
GreyBeard and suspenders optional
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 05/10/2019 19.30, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 21:09, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>>
>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> [.apologies if this appears twice. Just sent with wrong from: address so I expect
> apache to bounce it. I'm still on limited 'net connectivity since my house move -
> ISP due on Oct 14th to install proper connection].
>
> If it moves to github, how and at what level is history preserved? Github can do
> alarming things with history even for a project that's always been there!

We would have the exact same level of history as before (one might even
say we'll get more history, as you can specify committer and author
separately in git). If you look at https://github.com/apache/httpd which
is our current git mirror, it should have the exact same commits going
back to 1996 as the subversion repository. There is a bit of a lag on
the mirror right now, but that is a separate issue that will be fixed on
October 12th.

There is also, as you mention, the risk of force-pushing to rewrite
history, but as I understand it, we can disable this by requiring PRs
for each change to the canonical branch(es).

The old subversion history would also be retained on the svn master.

>
> Don't we have an svn-git gateway? If that's not best-of-both-worlds, why not?
>
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle ore 22:09 Jim Jagielski
<jim@jagunet.com> ha scritto:
>
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)

+1!

Luca
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 21:14 Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote:

> There is nothing
> remotely wrong with subversion and "popular" is not a valid argument.
> Madonna was popular also. So was Lawrence Welk.
>

It's more nuanced than "popular". It's about making it accessible to - and
attracting - a new generation of participants.

>
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 14:24, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 21:14 Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing
>> remotely wrong with subversion and "popular" is not a valid argument.
>> Madonna was popular also. So was Lawrence Welk.
>
>
> It's more nuanced than "popular". It's about making it accessible to - and attracting - a new generation of participants.

Surely a GitHub mirror would make it accessible/attractive too?

S.
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>
I don't really see the point. There's already a mirror there for those
who can't live without git. I'd also mention that svn has been a long
time user of apr.
However, at the current level of httpd being a mostly dormant project
(has it been 10+ years since 3.x was even a topic)...

So, it's a -0 from the peanut gallery.


vh

Mads Toftum
--
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
+1

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 19:29, Mads Toftum <mads@toftum.dk> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
> >
> > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
> years of this project :)
> >
> I don't really see the point. There's already a mirror there for those
> who can't live without git. I'd also mention that svn has been a long
> time user of apr.
> However, at the current level of httpd being a mostly dormant project
> (has it been 10+ years since 3.x was even a topic)...
>
> So, it's a -0 from the peanut gallery.
>
>
> vh
>
> Mads Toftum
> --
> http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
>
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
> On Oct 5, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)

I don't like git. I don't like isolating work on branches. If we want to work on it as a base,
we need to agree on how to manage the release branches first and their names (so that
the existing history can be merged accordingly).

I hate our existing bugzilla blackhole and manual process of PRs.

I do like Github. I like the flexibility and openness of Github issues and tracking with commits.
I like the PRs and review mechanisms. I am not sure what to do about security issues.
I don't know how to handle folks who don't have Github IDs already (or don't want them).

Currently, I am +0 on the idea, but +1 if the way forward is worked out and the process
of migrating history is extensively automated/tested first. I did that for httpwg and it was
a pain in the ass even with only five committers. But it can be done.

....Roy
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 17:52, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> > On Oct 5, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >
> > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
> >
> > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
> years of this project :)
>
> I don't like git. I don't like isolating work on branches. If we want to
> work on it as a base,
> we need to agree on how to manage the release branches first and their
> names (so that
> the existing history can be merged accordingly).
>
> I hate our existing bugzilla blackhole and manual process of PRs.
>
> I do like Github. I like the flexibility and openness of Github issues and
> tracking with commits.
> I like the PRs and review mechanisms. I am not sure what to do about
> security issues.
>

Assuming you mean developing and discussing security fixes:
https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-maintainer-security-advisory


> I don't know how to handle folks who don't have Github IDs already (or
> don't want them).
>
> Currently, I am +0 on the idea, but +1 if the way forward is worked out
> and the process
> of migrating history is extensively automated/tested first. I did that
> for httpwg and it was
> a pain in the ass even with only five committers. But it can be done.
>
> ....Roy
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019, 11:52 Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> > On Oct 5, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >
> > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
>

Not because of git, but due to GitHub. Git is "meh", but GitHub is a
fantastic tool.

>
> > Is this something the httpd project should consider?


-0 because I'm not sure it would improve contribution, though it would
certainly help some people with their workflow (think: mod_md)

>...

> I don't know how to handle folks who don't have Github IDs already (or
> don't want them).
>

Those without GitHub IDs, or do not want to accept their T&C's would use
their Apache ID and commit to gitbox.a.o. Not a problem, already solved :-)

Cheers,
-g
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
> On 6 Oct 2019, at 04:06, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/10/2019 19.30, Nick Kew wrote:
>>>
>> If it moves to github, how and at what level is history preserved? Github can do
>> alarming things with history even for a project that's always been there!
>
> We would have the exact same level of history as before (one might even say we'll get more history, as you can specify committer and author separately in git). If you look at https://github.com/apache/httpd which is our current git mirror, it should have the exact same commits going back to 1996 as the subversion repository. There is a bit of a lag on the mirror right now, but that is a separate issue that will be fixed on October 12th.

OK, I've just dug up an example in an Apache/Github project. A simple renaming
of a source file, that with "svn mv" would have preserved history, seems to have
essentially wiped its past. 'History' is highly misleading, 'Blame' is 100% wrong!

https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/blob/master/plugins/experimental/stream_editor/stream_editor.cc

And that's within git: no actual change-of-repos involved.

Regarding httpd, we have the git mirror, so access is available through whatever
a contributor prefers. How is that not best-of-both-worlds?

--
Nick Kew
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
> Regarding httpd, we have the git mirror, so access is available through whatever
> a contributor prefers. How is that not best-of-both-worlds?

Can't merge a pull request, can only close it. Can't do either from
the UI. IIUC, GH doesn't know who contributors are for their "merged"
PRs.
Net: A read-only bridge is worse than a hello-world r/w github project.

Similarly, two bug trackers and two avenues for contributions means
low ROI on any kind of process improvements much less where we have a
weird/diminished GH experience.
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 06/10/2019 17.59, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On 6 Oct 2019, at 04:06, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/10/2019 19.30, Nick Kew wrote:
>>>>
>>> If it moves to github, how and at what level is history preserved? Github can do
>>> alarming things with history even for a project that's always been there!
>>
>> We would have the exact same level of history as before (one might even say we'll get more history, as you can specify committer and author separately in git). If you look at https://github.com/apache/httpd which is our current git mirror, it should have the exact same commits going back to 1996 as the subversion repository. There is a bit of a lag on the mirror right now, but that is a separate issue that will be fixed on October 12th.
>
> OK, I've just dug up an example in an Apache/Github project. A simple renaming
> of a source file, that with "svn mv" would have preserved history, seems to have
> essentially wiped its past. 'History' is highly misleading, 'Blame' is 100% wrong!

It would be 100% wrong in svn as well if the same operation had been
performed there, as it wasn't a move - the number of lines don't match
up. There is a `git mv` just like `svn mv` that preserves history, AIUI.
A file where `svn mv` was actually used [1] shows that the history is
preserved through the mv operation and blame works as intended, even in git.

>
> https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/blob/master/plugins/experimental/stream_editor/stream_editor.cc
>
> And that's within git: no actual change-of-repos involved.
>
> Regarding httpd, we have the git mirror, so access is available through whatever
> a contributor prefers. How is that not best-of-both-worlds?
>

As Eric alluded to, it's much less about svn versus git than it is about
tapping into the community on GitHub. If there was an svnhub, I'd be all
for that as an easier way to do this, but alas no.

[1]
https://github.com/apache/httpd/blame/dc8ed8a7df9edbe9340a1bc5f01501dbd60e8366/server/mpm/beos/config5.m4
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 10/06/2019 06:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>>
>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>
> I don't like git. I don't like isolating work on branches. If we want to work on it as a base,
> we need to agree on how to manage the release branches first and their names (so that
> the existing history can be merged accordingly).
>
> I hate our existing bugzilla blackhole and manual process of PRs.
>
> I do like Github. I like the flexibility and openness of Github issues and tracking with commits.
> I like the PRs and review mechanisms. I am not sure what to do about security issues.

Working on other projects recently I was impressed how much of the contribution legwork
that we do manually today can be done by Github processes and I was impressed by
the review process possibilities via PR.
This is a big plus over how we have to handle contributions today.
But this also means we can only really benefit if we fully leverage PR and GH issues for our workflows.

Apart from Github I still like Subversion more than git, especially the lean working copies and the immutable
history.

> I don't know how to handle folks who don't have Github IDs already (or don't want them).
>
> Currently, I am +0 on the idea, but +1 if the way forward is worked out and the process
> of migrating history is extensively automated/tested first. I did that for httpwg and it was
> a pain in the ass even with only five committers. But it can be done.

Did I get it correct from Daniel, that this issue is already solved?
But looking at one of my recent Subversion commits (r1866078 / cb8c40c581d17382cba338b3d90c67b914648984)
that happened after I joined the Apache Org on Github does not show my Github user as committer
(it only mentions my full name, so there is some connection).
@Daniel: Is this the issue to be fixed on Oct 12th?
All in all I am currently +0.

Regards

R?diger
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On 07/10/2019 14.48, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2019 06:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an increase in contributions and contributors...
>>>
>>> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years of this project :)
>>
>> I don't like git. I don't like isolating work on branches. If we want to work on it as a base,
>> we need to agree on how to manage the release branches first and their names (so that
>> the existing history can be merged accordingly).
>>
>> I hate our existing bugzilla blackhole and manual process of PRs.
>>
>> I do like Github. I like the flexibility and openness of Github issues and tracking with commits.
>> I like the PRs and review mechanisms. I am not sure what to do about security issues.
>
> Working on other projects recently I was impressed how much of the contribution legwork
> that we do manually today can be done by Github processes and I was impressed by
> the review process possibilities via PR.
> This is a big plus over how we have to handle contributions today.
> But this also means we can only really benefit if we fully leverage PR and GH issues for our workflows.
>
> Apart from Github I still like Subversion more than git, especially the lean working copies and the immutable
> history.
>
>> I don't know how to handle folks who don't have Github IDs already (or don't want them).
>>
>> Currently, I am +0 on the idea, but +1 if the way forward is worked out and the process
>> of migrating history is extensively automated/tested first. I did that for httpwg and it was
>> a pain in the ass even with only five committers. But it can be done.
>
> Did I get it correct from Daniel, that this issue is already solved?
> But looking at one of my recent Subversion commits (r1866078 / cb8c40c581d17382cba338b3d90c67b914648984)
> that happened after I joined the Apache Org on Github does not show my Github user as committer
> (it only mentions my full name, so there is some connection).

To me, when I look at the commit[1], it links to your github account[2]
if you click on the user avatar.

> @Daniel: Is this the issue to be fixed on Oct 12th?
> All in all I am currently +0.

What is being fixed on october 12th is the live sync of the git mirror
after the catastrophic data center failure we had in september[3].


[1]
https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/cb8c40c581d17382cba338b3d90c67b914648984
[2] https://github.com/rpluem
[3] https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/subversion-to-git-service-git
AW: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
C2 General

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org>
> Gesendet: Montag, 7. Oktober 2019 22:48
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Migrate to git?
>
> On 07/10/2019 14.48, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >
> > Did I get it correct from Daniel, that this issue is already solved?
> > But looking at one of my recent Subversion commits (r1866078 /
> cb8c40c581d17382cba338b3d90c67b914648984)
> > that happened after I joined the Apache Org on Github does not show my
> Github user as committer
> > (it only mentions my full name, so there is some connection).
>
> To me, when I look at the commit[1], it links to your github account[2]
> if you click on the user avatar.

Thanks. I guess I got confused by not being listed as a contributor on this
file. But as far as I can tell now the actual committer of the commit never
shows up in the list of contributors to this file. So all good.

Regards

Rüdiger
Re: Migrate to git? [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an
> increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25
> years of this project :)

Can we use Travis CI as well? If so I am +1 on moving to github, being
able to easily configure a consistent CI across branches and PRs will be
a major improvement over the status quo. (I have no idea how buildbot
works or how to improve it and it's unusuable before commits)

Regards, Joe

1 2  View All