-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move this repo to original dashboard repo (eXist-db/dashboard) #81
Comments
@JoernT commented on Jan 21, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC: while i agree that less repos are better i'm not sure if that doesn't lead to confusion. E.g. what to do with the existing tickets in the old one that do not apply to the new one? I don't really like the idea that i'm the one to sort these out. further - we now got these distinct ones and would then suddenly mix them up. that can certainly cause some confusion. However why not drop the old repo once we're done and mark it deprecated? I'm not against renaming this repo if the 'existdb-' the the offending factor in the name. |
@dizzzz commented on Jan 21, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC: it is not the repo, it is the deployment URL? |
@joewiz commented on Jan 23, 2019, 5:45 AM UTC: I propose the following plan to merge the repos, which I am happy to shepherd if we refine it and agree on the approach: 1. Prepare version numbers
2. Sort out issues/PRs
3. Merge git repos
4. Publish 1.1.1 and 2.0.0 to public-repo
Result
Thoughts? |
@joewiz commented on Jan 26, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC: As described in task 2 above, I've completed a review of all outstanding issues and PRs in the original repo. I've also submitted a PR adding the "move" bot to this repo (#17); once that's moved I'll migrate this repo's 3 open issues to the original repo. I've added an item to the agenda for Monday's community call to discuss my proposal. JoernT Would you be able to join the call? If not, would you please add your comments here beforehand? |
@adamretter commented on Jan 27, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC: To be clear. Let's not move the repo, instead we should bring in the git history atop the other repo. In this way we have the history of both repositories |
@joewiz commented on Jan 27, 2019, 4:08 AM UTC: That’s what I mean - thanks for clarifying! |
@joewiz commented on Feb 1, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC: I've now finished moving the remaining open issues to the old dashboard repository. wolfgangmm Am I right to assume there's no objection to the plan outlined above? If so, I'll proceed with steps 1, 3, and 4. (I'll take care to tread carefully around eXist-db/exist#2449 until that is fixed.) |
Okay, I have now completed the remaining actions we decided on here:
I haven't migrated/adapted tags from the existdb-dashboard repo yet, since permissions on the repo are preventing me from pushing tags to branches, but if we do so, we need to avoid duplicating the original repository's tags, e.g., by making each missing tag 2.0.0-RC1, 2, 3, etc. |
looking at dashboard 2.0.0 in
|
The work proposed above is complete. Please open new issues for any follow-on problems. |
@joewiz commented on Jan 21, 2019, 11:19 AM UTC:
From eXist-db/exist#2408 (comment):
See also #13 (comment).
This issue was moved by joewiz from eXist-db/existdb-dashboard#15.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: