Hi,
I didn't found the conclusion on the discussion: What was the outcome on this topic? Which reference to old svn shall be inserted into git repo?
Cheers, Frank
Le 04/12/2011 15:09, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
Hi,
I didn't found the conclusion on the discussion: What was the outcome on this topic? Which reference to old svn shall be inserted into git repo?
IMHO (as said in my last mail on the previous thread) the best possible would be http(s)://svn.geany.org/svnroot/geany-plugins@rev with the appropriate SVN mirror on geany.org and a web interface capable of displaying such SVN URL.
Enrico said he was OK to setup something on geany.org given he knew what, so having the URL point there is better I think. And I think that either with the appropriate web interface and/or a shiny rewrite rule it should not be that difficult to make such SVN URL also work on the web interface.
Anyway if I had to choose between valid SVN and web interface URL, I better choose SVN URL.
That's my personal conclusion, but yet again, I don't really mind what's the final choice.
Regards, Colomban
On 11-12-04 06:09 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi,
I didn't found the conclusion on the discussion: What was the outcome on this topic? Which reference to old svn shall be inserted into git repo?
The conclusion is that the SVN-URL in the commit message is a valid SVN URL to checkout that commit, so is fine. My complaint was that it was a broken URL that didn't work, but I didn't realize it was not a web-browser link, it's a link to work with SVN client.
First I mentioned it in the original thread:
**** FROM OTHER THREAD **** On 11-11-04 04:03 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/11/2011 23:28, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 03:18, Matthew Brush wrote: OK, thanks. So is there any "official" conclusion which format should be used? (I don't have any strong preference here.)
I'd personally prefer to have a valid SVN URL rather than a valid HTTP link, but again, I don't mind much.
Thanks for pointing out now *after* so much time and discussion that the existing URL *was a valid SVN URL*. I'm glad I wasted my time :) </sarcasm>
@Jiri I'd say it's your call, in light of this new information, I'd say leave it as is and get it done as soon as you have time (assuming no one else objects). **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
And then I clarified in your later thread since probably you didn't read the first thread and mentioned it still being an open issue:
**** FROM OTHER THREAD **** On 11/15/2011 08:55 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi developers,
It has been a while when I first announced a mail about my idea of process after transition of geany-plugins repository. As from my understand the only open point is to have clarified the svn-url-reference question its a good point to tell you what I'm thinking of.
The point is closed, see the thread, apologies for not making that clear enough. IIUC it's basically just a matter of someone pushing the repo unless people have committed to SVN in the meantime I guess it needs to be re-processed.... **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
I guess this could be a third time that I can say it *THERE ARE NO PENDING ISSUES, PLEASE PUSH THE PLUGINS TO GIT ALREADY!* :)
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:26:41 -0800 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 11-12-04 06:09 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi,
I didn't found the conclusion on the discussion: What was the outcome on this topic? Which reference to old svn shall be inserted into git repo?
The conclusion is that the SVN-URL in the commit message is a valid SVN URL to checkout that commit, so is fine. My complaint was that it was a broken URL that didn't work, but I didn't realize it was not a web-browser link, it's a link to work with SVN client.
First I mentioned it in the original thread:
**** FROM OTHER THREAD **** On 11-11-04 04:03 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/11/2011 23:28, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 03:18, Matthew Brush wrote: OK, thanks. So is there any "official" conclusion which format should be used? (I don't have any strong preference here.)
I'd personally prefer to have a valid SVN URL rather than a valid HTTP link, but again, I don't mind much.
Thanks for pointing out now *after* so much time and discussion that the existing URL *was a valid SVN URL*. I'm glad I wasted my time :)
</sarcasm>
@Jiri I'd say it's your call, in light of this new information, I'd say leave it as is and get it done as soon as you have time (assuming no one else objects). **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
And then I clarified in your later thread since probably you didn't read the first thread and mentioned it still being an open issue:
**** FROM OTHER THREAD **** On 11/15/2011 08:55 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi developers,
It has been a while when I first announced a mail about my idea of process after transition of geany-plugins repository. As from my understand the only open point is to have clarified the svn-url-reference question its a good point to tell you what I'm thinking of.
The point is closed, see the thread, apologies for not making that clear enough. IIUC it's basically just a matter of someone pushing the repo unless people have committed to SVN in the meantime I guess it needs to be re-processed.... **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
I guess this could be a third time that I can say it *THERE ARE NO PENDING ISSUES, PLEASE PUSH THE PLUGINS TO GIT ALREADY!* :)
Due to a lot of prosa I didn't found this.
We will take original sf links.
Cheers, Frank