Google Code shutdown / RepositoryMigration

[Marcus Rohrmoser]

Google Code will become read-only on August 25th and I guess it will remain so afterwards. That's little more than two weeks from now.

On

Friday, August 21st

I will change the entry page of http://piccolo2d.googlecode.com/ to point to http://piccolo2d.mro.name/community.html which we have to update to reflect the new hosting situation - what ever it may be.

As far as I see, there's NO LOSSLESS migration procedure yet. That's due to the non-standard svn directory layout (branches/tags/trunk per sub-projects piccolo2d.java piccolo2d.net pocketpiccolo each).

I wouldn't mind loosing all but java and the web content. So I may do an export to github of the java part only. Also I will not care about history nor issue tracker nor wiki pages if that takes extra effort. (I’m having trouble to transfer the issue tracker content for piccolo2d.java)

If anybody (YOU!) wants to see a more comprehensive migration, please don't expect anybody else to do it for you. Step up and help. And quick, please.

Cheers,
Marcus

[M. Rohrmoser]

I just transferred with the help of Michael all code to https://github.com/piccolo2d

Please everybody have a look until Aug. 17th and speak up or remain mute forever :-)

Cheery,

Marcus

[Marcus Rohrmoser]

Hi Heiko,

thank you for your interest, it’s very encouraging to get feedback.

Meanwhle I got some help and the transfer is already done, ready to fork after Aug 17th (time limit for appeal given to the other owners) at https://github.com/piccolo2d/

Am 11.08.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Heiko Haller <heiko....@imapping.info>:

> What would happen, if we just used https://code.google.com/export-to-github/ ?

I did and got back garbage.

> Even if it would yield an uncommon directory structure, wouldn’t it be a good enough way to preserve piccolo’s version history and issues?

No. A directory structure you can’t work with doesn’t make sense, not even as a container for the issues.

> For further use, we could still create new branches or simply a new ‘active’ project, while leaving the import as an archive only.
> Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently proficient in git management to do this on my own. But wouldn’t this be a rather easy alternative?

Easy yes, alternative no.

Cheers,
Marcus