[Pulp-dev] Moving the pulp/pulp repo to pulp/pulpcore

[Brian Bouterse]

This cutover is starting in about 2 hours. I'll send instructions here when
the cutover has occurred.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:26 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> I tried to clarify the plan some. More feedback/input is welcome!
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:02 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok it sounds like Thursday is our day. I'm planning on 5pm UTC
>>> https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=4460243,100,3078610&h=4460243&date=2019-2-28&sln=12-13
>>>
>>> At that time a few things will happen:
>>> * I'll perform the cutover, removing pulp/pulp:master, and making
>>> pulp/pulp:2-master the primary branch (nothing changes for pulp2)
>>> * I'll send a note to pulp-dev immediately w/ some basic instructions on
>>> how to port your repos. (basically delete, fork, fresh clone)
>>> * I'll be closing the Pulp3 PRs on pulp/pulp and opening them on
>>> pulp/pulpcore
>>> * I will cutover only over the Pulp3 tags
>>> * applying Travis updates to use the new repo on other various repos
>>> that rely on source checkouts of pulp/pulp (these will be prepped ahead of
>>> time)
>>>
>>> I'll be preparing that morning, so feel free to ask any questions on IRC
>>> or email ahead of time.
>>>
>>
>> How are you doing this? Are you planning on renaming pulp/pulp to
>> pulp/pulpcore, then creating a new pulp/pulp repo with the old stuff? If
>> you're doing that, how do you plan to migrate PRs across? I didn't think
>> GitHub supported that. If you're doing the inverse (creating a new
>> pulp/pulpcore instead), then how will the pulp 3 PRs move?
>>
> I put some details on how this will happen in a written out plan on the
> ticket here:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#the-plan       I'll move
> the few PRs manually following these steps (
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#Moving-PRs ). I verified github allows
> me to open those new PRs.
>
>>
>> What I would actually suggest is archiving the existing pulp/pulp repo,
>> and creating two new ones: pulp/pulpcore (for Pulp 3), and pulp/pulp-legacy
>> (for pulp 2). This makes it a clean break for both, and makes it a lot less
>> confusing to understand what happened and how people should target. This
>> also has the advantage of not requiring you to do weird things to the Git
>> repo.
>>
>
> The "two totally new repos" plan would be fine with me, but one of the
> design goals during this change is that existing pulp2 development and
> pulp2 build/test has no disruption. This is what is driving the plan to
> move the pulp3 to a new repo and leave the existing one unaffected. Also
> the git stuff I think of as kind of normal stuff in that I'm moving moving
> refs and tags between two remotes. Either way (two new repos or one)
> everyone would fixup their repos by re-forking and re-cloning, I wrote that
> out that process some here:
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4444#Fixing-forks-and-checkouts
>
>>
>> Everyone also gets to endure the pain at once too, which makes things a
>> lot simpler.
>>
> I believe separating the pain makes it more manageable because only those
> involved with pulp3 are involved with this change. Also we're not sure will
> become of the pulp/pulp repo over time in terms of its name.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190228/0991c06d/attachment.htm>