|GitHub migration done!||Adrian Holovaty||4/27/12 8:08 PM|
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Adrian Holovaty <adr...@holovaty.com> wrote:
> We're going to do the migration to GitHub today. This means we'll no
> longer be committing code to our Subversion repository. Committers,
> please hold off on making commits until the migration is done.
OK, it's live!
A few quick points (though this definitely deserves a more in-depth writeup):
* I renamed the old (mirror) repository to
https://github.com/django/django-old. We had talked about deleting it
outright to avoid confusion, but I realized at the last minute that
doing so would have deleted all the pull requests. I didn't want to
throw all of that out, and I think we can figure out a way to use
those pull requests in the new repository.
* I only migrated trunk (now called "master"), rather than including
all of the branches. This was the result of a bunch of discussion on
IRC with Brian R., et al. The thinking is that it kept the migration a
lot cleaner/simpler, and we can always add branches later. Of course,
we'll need to create the latest release branches. Otherwise, we can
consider the SVN branches on an individual basis.
* As expected, all forks of the old repository are now broken. Can
somebody volunteer to write some documentation on how to upgrade your
old fork to use the new upstream repo (rebase? simple patch?)?
* We're going to keep the Subversion repository around indefinitely,
but it'll no longer be updated.
* We're going to keep using Trac for tickets, but pull requests on
GitHub are also welcome.
* Clearly there are lots of bits of process that need to be updated
now, from the django-updates mailing list to our "contributing"
documentation, etc. We'll take care of all of that in the coming days,
and we should all expect some degree of confusion and unsettlement in
the community. That's totally fine, and we'll get through it. :-)
* Finally, big thanks to the folks on IRC today who helped me through
the process and contributed good ideas.
I'm planning to write up a blog post on how the process went, for the
benefit of the five open-source projects still using Subversion.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Justin Holmes||4/27/12 11:49 PM|
Thank you. Well done. Awesome. :-)
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
Head Instructor, SlashRoot Collective
SlashRoot: Coffee House and Tech Dojo
60 Main Street
New Paltz, NY 12561
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Aymeric Augustin||4/28/12 12:03 AM|
On 28 avr. 2012, at 05:08, Adrian Holovaty wrote:Hi everyone,
For extra safety, I recommend you still create Trac tickets for each suggested change, until we work out how pull requests integrate into the triage workflow.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Dana Woodman||4/28/12 12:15 AM|
Congrats Adrian, this is very exciting news! I'm excited to see Django taking the next leap forward, exciting times ahead! Cheers!
|Re: GitHub migration done!||slav0nic||4/28/12 5:17 AM|
what about "Browse Source", trac links to changset, CommitTicketUpdater ?
Maybe this will be possible only if you syncing github to local copy via pulling.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Camilo Nova||4/28/12 6:07 AM|
Great Job. This will make easier for a lot of people to be involved on the project.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vbabiy||4/28/12 6:25 AM|
Awesome job guys!
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Sean Lee||4/28/12 7:53 AM|
在 2012年4月28日星期六UTC+8上午11时08分09秒，Adrian Holovaty写道：
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Matt||4/28/12 8:17 AM|
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Jacob Kaplan-Moss||4/28/12 10:10 AM|
Yup, I'm working on that. I didn't get it done yesterday, but didn't want to block the move. I'll get it done this weekend.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Matt||4/28/12 11:32 AM|
Could you make tags out of stable releases. It would help a lot :}
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]||4/28/12 11:35 AM|
Amazing news!! Great job, Adrian.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Yuval Adam||4/28/12 12:46 PM|
I think this issue should be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Django will start getting lots of orphan pull requests with no
matching trac ticket, and a policy of how community members should
contribute via github should be in place.
As a side note, it is kind of a hassle to submit a pull request and
then go fill a new trac ticket.
For me, as a kind-of-involved user of Django, I simply won't go into
On Apr 28, 10:03 am, Aymeric Augustin
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Aymeric Augustin||4/28/12 2:36 PM|
On 28 avr. 2012, at 21:46, Yuval Adam wrote:Hi Yuval,
The core team is actively discussing this question.
My previous recommendation isn't a final decision.
I hope we'll release more information soon.
Thanks for your patience,
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Yuval Adam||4/28/12 2:56 PM|
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
If there's a public thread I can follow re: this issue, I'd appreciate
a link, since I haven't been able to find it.
Waiting patiently :)
On Apr 29, 12:36 am, Aymeric Augustin
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Adrian Holovaty||4/28/12 5:16 PM|
|Re: GitHub migration done!||charettes||4/28/12 8:19 PM|
I wrote a little userscript that linkifies ticket numbers in github pull request to the correct trac ticket.
It can be found here.
Le vendredi 27 avril 2012 23:08:09 UTC-4, Adrian Holovaty a écrit :
|Re: GitHub migration done!||ptone||4/28/12 10:37 PM|
It is a small hassle, but I've done it several times (creating a pull and ticket with cross referencing links). Writing tests can sometimes feel like a hassle.
Hopefully we will see some solutions and improvements in the trac-github space, but in the meantime - it shouldn't be a barrier to contributing - a few more clicks is all.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Daniel Sokolowski||4/30/12 4:54 AM|
Adrian, excellent job and thank you! Curious what five open-source on
Subversion you are referring to?
Danols Web Engineering
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vinay Sajip||4/30/12 6:11 PM|
On Apr 28, 4:08 am, Adrian Holovaty <adr...@holovaty.com> wrote:That means that any mirrors using that repository as a source are also
not worth using any more. There's the official BitBucket Mercurial
mirror of Django:
Is that going to be changed to be a mirror of the GitHub repo, or will
it disappear altogether?
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Carl Meyer||4/30/12 6:19 PM|
Good point. I think which of those happens now depends on whether a
motivated someone steps up to figure out how to convert the mirror to
use hg-git and source from Git, and then maintain it as needed. I
originally did the current mirror, and it really hasn't needed any
maintenance over the past two years, but I no longer use Mercurial or
the Mercurial Django mirror, so that "motivated someone" is not likely
to be me this time around.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vinay Sajip||4/30/12 11:45 PM|
I don't mind doing it, if it's sufficiently low-maintenance, and I do
use Mercurial as well as Git. Did you implement it using a local repo
and a cron job, or was there something else you used which was more
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Carsten Fuchs||5/1/12 3:07 AM|
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
Please forgive me a side question though:
Excellent job, thank you very much!
Why didn't you convert the feature branches when converting the repository from SVN to Git as well?
I'm asking this mainly because I'm relatively new to Git, and wonder how exactly do you plan to convert the branches (especially the long merged ones) at a later time? Wouldn't this unconditionally change the hashes of all commits subsequent to the merge (and thus be self-forbidding on a public repository? which in turn makes later adding of merged branches impossible?)
A thousand thanks to you all from a happy Django user!
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Carl Meyer||5/1/12 9:39 AM|
On 05/01/2012 12:45 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:I can't speak for how it will be with hg-git (there is a bit more
potential complexity since the source repo is not simple and linear like
Subversion), but hgsubversion has required exactly zero maintenance
since I first set it up.
It's just a cron job and a local repo using hgsubversion; every five
minutes it pulls the latest from Subversion and pushes it to Bitbucket.
The repo and cron job are hosted on the djangoproject.com server. If you
are able to get the conversion from git working and repeatable on a
local repo, I think Jacob can probably get you hooked up to host it on
djangoproject.com (which also has an ssh key with permission to push to
The tricky bit will be making the switch to sourcing from git in a way
that doesn't change all the historical commit hashes, making the new
mirror repo merge-incompatible with the current mirror (and all clones
of it). It's possible there will be no way to do that, in which case I
guess a new incompatible mirror is still better than no mirror at all.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Donald Stufft||5/1/12 9:40 AM|
Pretty sure this isn't going to make a compatible with the existing mirror
mirror but http://hg-git.github.com/ should make it easy to go from git -> hg.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Florian Apolloner||5/2/12 6:37 AM|
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:40:53 PM UTC+2, dstufft wrote:
Far from easy, last time (or actually times) I tried to use it it broke in many horrible ways :( [And either the link isn't listing an up2date project or it's really dead since 3 years]
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Florian Apolloner||5/2/12 6:38 AM|
Ignore the dead status, I had to many github tabs open :/ -- it's apperently still maintained actively
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]||5/2/12 9:09 AM|
Apologies if this question has already been answered or seems silly but - is there a reason Mercurial is needed?? Can contributors not just switch to using git?
i.e. if we have deprecated SVN, then why isn't Mercurial also being deprecated??
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vinay Sajip||5/2/12 9:41 AM|
Okay, I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, I've pinged someone at
Atlassian to see if they already have something/might be interested in
hosting and maintaining a mirror (since BitBucket actually uses
I'll still try it out with a local repo to see how it works (as time
Thanks and regards,
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Carl Meyer||5/2/12 10:41 AM|
On 05/02/2012 10:09 AM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] wrote:This isn't an issue where anyone has to dictate anything; there is no
cost. If there are Django contributors who prefer Mercurial, and one of
them is motivated to maintain a mirror repository, that's great.
(The same is equally true for Subversion, except that I don't know of
anybody who prefers using it as a client, and mirroring in that
direction is pretty hard/impossible).
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vinay Sajip||5/3/12 3:43 PM|
On May 1, 5:39 pm, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> wrote:
> It's just a cron job and a local repo using hgsubversion; every fiveOkay, in case anyone cares, I've set up a local repo and have used hg-
git to pull Django's Github repo to it, and pushed out to a Mercurial
I've also set up a Git repo at
from the local Mercurial repo. On casual inspection, at least, all the
hashes look the same between the official Django repo and the
There were no errors reported; it's rather slow pushing to a Git repo,
not sure why yet. I haven't set it up as a cron job, so it's not
actually a mirror yet, but some manual pulls and pushes to the remote
Mercurial repo worked fine.
I'll wait to hear back from Atlassian to see if they've set anything
up, before I do anything more.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Charles McLaughlin||5/11/12 7:58 PM|
I setup a new mirror using hg-git:
I work for Bitbucket and I'll make sure the mirror is maintained.
|Re: GitHub migration done!||Vinay Sajip||5/12/12 3:19 PM|
Thanks very much for doing this.