[ruby-core:28355] [ANN] Toward rich diversity of Ruby development.
Urabe Shyouhei
http://github.com/ruby/ruby
The remaining problem is whether or not to call this an official mirror.
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ruby-core:28355] [ANN] Toward rich diversity of Ruby development."
on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:35:35 +0900, Urabe Shyouhei <shyo...@ruby-lang.org> writes:
|The remaining problem is whether or not to call this an official mirror.
Call it official. Now you have no more problem.
matz.
Jon
> http://github.com/ruby/ruby
Great.
Those following along from git://github.com/shyouhei/ruby should immediately switch over to your new repo as you're not going to be maintaining both, correct?
Jon
Vladimir Sizikov
Just FYI, we also have a git mirror at
http://github.com/rubyspec/matzruby and the big difference between the
two I see is that in case of rubyspec's mirror we have proper branches
and tags set, while in http://github.com/ruby/ruby both branches *and*
tags are mapped into git branches, which is a bit inconvenient, since
you end up with 242 branches and 0 tags.
If you think that having proper separation between tags and branches
in a manner we do in our git repo is beneficial, let me know, I'll
provide the details.
As for having one blessed official git repo of MRI, that's terrific!
Thanks,
--Vladimir
Urabe Shyouhei
Well a sad news is that shyouhei/ruby isn't a dual to ruby/ruby... Because when
I created shyouhei/ruby I wasn't used to git and github, some commits aren't
identical (in hashes) between those two repo. So if you've already edited your
local repo, you're wiser not to move. I won't stop updating shyouhei/ruby so
already-created forks should work fine. Sorry to put you to a trouble.
New forks should start from ruby/ruby of course.
Urabe Shyouhei
> Hi,
Hi.
> Just FYI, we also have a git mirror at
> http://github.com/rubyspec/matzruby and the big difference between the
> two I see is that in case of rubyspec's mirror we have proper branches
> and tags set, while in http://github.com/ruby/ruby both branches *and*
> tags are mapped into git branches, which is a bit inconvenient, since
> you end up with 242 branches and 0 tags.
I assume this is because SVN tags are not directly mappable to git tags. Those
tags/* branches are made via ``git svn init --stdlayout'', so I suspect this is
the way it should be.
But yes, this is ugly. Should we move those branches into tags? I'm in
neutral on this point.
Eric Wong
> > Just FYI, we also have a git mirror at
> > http://github.com/rubyspec/matzruby and the big difference between the
> > two I see is that in case of rubyspec's mirror we have proper branches
> > and tags set, while in http://github.com/ruby/ruby both branches *and*
> > tags are mapped into git branches, which is a bit inconvenient, since
> > you end up with 242 branches and 0 tags.
>
> I assume this is because SVN tags are not directly mappable to git tags. Those
> tags/* branches are made via ``git svn init --stdlayout'', so I suspect this is
> the way it should be.
Correct, SVN tags don't map directly to git tags, so git svn makes SVN
tags into git branches by default.
> But yes, this is ugly. Should we move those branches into tags? I'm in
> neutral on this point.
Since Ruby project appears to never change tags, then yes.
New versions of git-svn (git >= 1.6.5) should be able to map SVN tags
into the refs/tags/* namespace (instead of refs/remotes/tags/*). Just
edit .git/config.
--
Eric Wong
Vladimir Sizikov
We had the same problem initially, but it was solved with some
gitconfig magic, something like this:
[remote "origin"]
url = g...@github.com:rubyspec/matzruby.git
push = refs/remotes/trunk:refs/heads/trunk
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_9_1:refs/heads/ruby_1_9_1
push = refs/remotes/mvm:refs/heads/mvm
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_8:refs/heads/ruby_1_8
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_8_7:refs/heads/ruby_1_8_7
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_8_6:refs/heads/ruby_1_8_6
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_8_5:refs/heads/ruby_1_8_5
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_6:refs/heads/ruby_1_6
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_4:refs/heads/ruby_1_4
push = refs/remotes/ruby_1_3:refs/heads/ruby_1_3
push = refs/remotes/tags/*:refs/tags/*
Adjusting the 'push' values it is possible to control where to push to.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyo...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> But yes, this is ugly. Should we move those branches into tags? I'm in
> neutral on this point.
Personally, I think that having separate proper branches and proper
tags seems to be pretty useful. There are only handful of important
branches and having them separated from countless and less-important
tags is good.
So that 'git branch -a' would print only important branches and 'git
tag -l' would print the tags.
Thanks,
--Vladimir
Aaron Patterson
Not true. Urabe will be flooded with pull requests. That sounds like a
problem to me. ;-)
--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
Urabe Shyouhei
> Personally, I think that having separate proper branches and proper
> tags seems to be pretty useful. There are only handful of important
> branches and having them separated from countless and less-important
> tags is good.
Seems no one is against it, I've just moved those tags/* branches to real git
tags. Tell me if something is wrong.
Vladimir Sizikov
So, I guess, we could turn off the rubyspec's matzruby repository
after a while, and suggest users to use this official version.
Just one question: how often the repository is being updated?
Thanks,
--Vladimir
Urabe Shyouhei
> Just one question: how often the repository is being updated?
It's cron-driven, once an hour now. But that's not smart -- maybe I should
write some git hooks someday.