I guess the main decision left is to decide on a schedule when to
officially switch to gitlab and if/how long we will keep the bitbucket
repository as a mirror (or essentially as a snapshot)
What about trying to sync it with new releases, e..g.:
- Releasing a 3.3.x within a few days and take this opportunity to announce the migration to Gitlab.com on the "...".
- Do the migration.
- Release 3.4-beta right after to celebrate the migration.
Maybe we could target the 8 of October? This should give us enough time to fix the very few true 3.4 blockers.
We also need to create a group for Eigen on gitlab.com
, since "eigen" is already taken (and I got no answer from the owner despite one reminder), we have to chose something else. On github, I created "eigenteam" to hold the current git-mirror, but we can think of:
I think that keeping the current hg repository sync with the new git repo is going to be a nightmare (because we rewrote the history), so I would probably keep it as a snapshot (unless someone come up we a working solution).
This also remind me that we'll have to do something about this git-mirror. We can either:
(1) - make it empty with a link to the new git repo
(2) - keep it as is (i.e., no sync) for a short period and then proceed as (1)
(3) - delete it and recreate it as a synced mirror of the new repo, and then after a short period proceed as (1)
If I'm not mistaken option (3) will probably break all users of this mirror, so that's probably not the best option!
Once bitbucket closes hg-support (or sooner), we can replace our current
main-repo by an otherwise empty git repository which just links to the
new repository (or make a git-mirror, but I don't see any benefits here).
good idea for the empty git repo.
Also, we should probably host the "last official" state of the mercurial
repository somewhere (as read-only).
On 18/09/2019 00.30, Gael Guennebaud wrote:
> Thanks to Joseph's work, and after fighting with Gitlab.com's super
> aggressive spam filter, I finally managed to get the following Gitlab.com
> project as a demo of what could be the outcome of a full migration:
> This project includes:
> - a git repo with bug ids, commit hashes, and pull-request links updated
> in commit message.
> - a migration of all our bugzilla entries and comments with similar
> updates as the commit messages.
> Some examples:
> - attachments, links to commits and bugs:
> - link to PR:
> - migration of our "3.x" bug entries as milestones:
> - link to PR from commits:
> - link to bug from commits:
> The bugzilla to gitlab migration script is there:
> https://gitlab.com/ggael/bztogl (adapted from
> PS1: If you notice many extra newlines in issue descriptions/comments,
> that's normal, I already fixed this shortcoming.
> What do you think ?
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:03 PM Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To prepare the migration from bitbucket, I started to play a bit with its
>> API to see what could be done. So far I've quickly draft two (ugly) python
>> scripts to archive the forks and pull-requests. Since this is a one shot
>> for us, I did not cared about robustness, safety, generality, beauty, etc.
>> You can see them there :
>> https://gitlab.com/ggael/bitbucket-migration-tools and contribute!
>> ** Forks **
>> You can see the summary of the fork script there:
>> The hg clones (history+checkout) represents 20GB, maybe 12GB if we remove
>> the checkouts. Among the 460 forks, 214 seems to have no change at all
>> (according to "hg out") and could be dropped. I don't know yet where to
>> host them though.
>> This script can be ran incrementally.
>> ** Pull-Requests **
>> You can find the output of the pull-requests script there:
>> There is a short summary, and then for each PR a static .html file plus
>> diff/patch files, and other details. For instance, see:
>> Currently this script cannot be ran incrementally. You have to run it just
>> before closing the respective repository!
>> Also, this script does not grab inline comments. Only the main discussions
>> is archived. Those can be obtained by iterating over the "activity" pages,
>> but I don't think that's worth the effort because they would be difficult
>> to exploit anyway.
>> ** hg to git **
>> As discussed in the other thread, if we switch from hg to git, then all
>> hashes will have to be updated. Generating a map file is easy, and thus
>> updating the links/hashes in bug comments and PR comments should not be too
>> difficult (we only have to figure out the right regex to catch all
>> However, updating the hashes within the commit messages will require to
>> rewrite the whole history in a careful order. Does anyone here feels brave
>> enough to write such a script? If not, I guess we could live with an online
>> php script doing the hash conversion on demand. I don't think we'll have to
>> follow such hashes so frequently.
Dr.-Ing. Christoph Hertzberg
Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle:
Robotics Innovation Center
28359 Bremen, Germany
Postadresse der Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen:
Robotics Innovation Center
28359 Bremen, Germany
Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021
Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0
Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik
Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Prof. Dr. Jana Koehler (Vorsitzende)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313