[Pkg-samba-maint] switching samba packaging to git tomorrow - don't use svn anymore

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:59:11PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > I just got a flood of emails, two for every commit.
> You should only get one email for every commit. I made a mistake, however,
> which deleted a number of old branches, which I recreated afterwards. So for
> those branches, you will have received two emails. As I said in a previous
> mail a few hours ago: sorry for the noise.
I'm still getting two emails for every commit. Perhaps this is, as Steve mentions,
because of them is being sent through the QA address?

> If you get duplicate mails for every real commit, then there must be something
> wrong somewhere. I copied the git config for the mails from the ctdb repo. Do
> you get duplicates there as well?
No, I'm not getting duplicates there IIRC.

> > What did we decide on the realnames vs invalid emails? I didn't see any
> > further discussion on it.
> This is what Jeroen wrote on Tuesday:
> 
> "I stopped running the conversion when I sent the mail. Although I
> still think using real names instead of alioth usernames is better, I
> don't feel very strong about it. It doesn't really matter that much
> and there are better things to spend our time on than bikeshedding
> about the format of names in the git history."
> 
> 
> Christian wrote this earlier today:
> 
> "Problem:where are we wrt svn->git?
> 
> I could "easily" prepare a p-u update in SVN but that would probably
> defeat Ivo's efforts..:-)

All of that got lost in the flood of emails. :-)

> Ivo, is it OK to start from the git repo, checkout the right branch
> there to get the package version and wheezy and build a p-u update
> from there? Is the git repo ready for this? From your last mails, I
> guess it is, but I prefer double checking."
> 
> After which I moved the repo from samba-test.git to samba.git. I wrote:
> 
> "I moved the repo to samba.git and configured the commit mails, so the new
> repo is open for business."
> 
> If you feel really strongly about it, I don't mind if you rerun the
> conversion, but then the git commits need to be rebased on top of the new
> repo. At this point, that shouldn't be too difficult, but as we go forward,
> this will become increasingly hard.
This is exactly why I think we should do the conversion properly *now*. It will be
impossible in the future to do *any* rebasing without it being painful or
breaking forks of the repository. I'm happy to do the conversion.

Cheers,

Jelmer