GitHub migration procedure

Discussion about the project in general, organization, website, or any other details that aren't directly about the game.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
adrian_broher
Programmer
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Germany

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#91 Post by adrian_broher »

Current state of affairs:

I did some research on finding some author data. I could almost map every commit to a real name using public available data. I mapped the emails to the emails published at your github account pages or, if I couldn't find any to the svn uuid.

Also I gave `git repack` a try on the unmodified repository, shrinking it from 815Mb to 506Mb. I wonder what could I gain from removing the /WindowsKit.zip (Windows SDK predecessor for OLD versions, and the blob I mentioned) file from the repository…
Resident code gremlin
Attached patches are released under GPL 2.0 or later.
Git author: Marcel Metz

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#92 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Vezzra wrote:...once again summon our project lead to make the final decision...
It's up to you. I have essentially no relevant knowledge or experience on this subject and think whatever you prefer to do is probably fine.
adrian_broher wrote:...removing the /WindowsKit.zip (Windows SDK predecessor for OLD versions...
From that description, I think that's probably OK to remove from the history, though I have no memory of it myself.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#93 Post by Vezzra »

adrian_broher wrote:I mapped the emails to the emails published at your github account pages or, if I couldn't find any to the svn uuid.
You might want to ask Geoff if he intends to keep the "public" email address you can now see on his profile page, because I think it wasn't really his intention to make that email public. He only briefly set it to public to test something, and then set it back to private. It just didn't disappear from his profile page. A solution would be to create another email address, like Dilvish did, e.g. [email protected], add that to his account, set it as the primary, public address, and remove the other one completely. If he considers that, you'd need to use whatever email he decides on for that purpose.

But maybe he's decided to just leave things as they are... Geoff?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#94 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Vezzra wrote:...ask Geoff if he intends to keep the "public" email address you can now see on his profile page...
Looking again, there's a public email droplist on the main profile edit page, separate from the email settings page, which has its own "Keep my email address private" check box that doesn't seem to do anything...? Or maybe just affects the commit logs? I don't know... but regardless, changing that droplist seems to have removed the email from my profile page.
...I think it wasn't really his intention to make that email public.
It's not a super important account, and is probably publically listed on sourceforge and other places already.
A solution would be to create another email address, like Dilvish did, e.g. [email protected], add that to his account...
I already have that account. It's added to the profile as well now. Which is set to primary appears, in the interface, to just set where notifications are sent.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#95 Post by Vezzra »

Geoff the Medio wrote:It's up to you. I have essentially no relevant knowledge or experience on this subject and think whatever you prefer to do is probably fine.
Well, my knowledge on the matter isn't so much better, but my inquiry wasn't really about if people think that Marcels approach will indeed give us a cleaner repo (I pretty much rely on his expertise regarding that).

My question is more if you guys consider the promised advantages (cleaner linking of branches and tags, which I don't think will noticably affect our future work, but give us a clean commit history and no confusing mislinked tags/branches) worth having to keep everything on hold for yet another little while.

As I see it, we have three options:
  • Decide we don't want to loose any more time, that our reimported repo with it's a bit screwed commit history when it comes to branches/tags is sufficient, and resume normal operation now.
  • Decide that we can use a break anyway, and give Marcel the time to convert our svn repo the way he suggested. Which will probably take a few days.
  • Decide that we want to give Marcels approach a try, give him the time to do that properly and not rush things, but don't want to keep everything on hold in the meantime. In that case, we could reopen the svn repo, continue working with it, and when Marcel is ready, close it down again, he does his magic, and then we switch to github.
That's probably a matter of personal taste I guess... and I've to admit that I have a hard time deciding what I'd prefer. Maybe a very slight preference for option 2 over option 1 (I like clean solutions), and option 3 would be my least favorite one.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#96 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Trying the cleaner import sounds fine. Having a bunch of branches showing up probably has made my attempts to use git so far even more complicated and confusing than they would already have been.

User avatar
adrian_broher
Programmer
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Germany

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#97 Post by adrian_broher »

Which will probably take a few days
It should be done tomorrow. Aside from a single quirk I'm happy with the current outcome. It probably takes more time to upload the result, download the backup and investigate the authors map, than it took to fix/cleanup the repository.
Resident code gremlin
Attached patches are released under GPL 2.0 or later.
Git author: Marcel Metz

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#98 Post by Vezzra »

Geoff the Medio wrote:Or maybe just affects the commit logs?
Which would be the important question: Which email do you want to appear in the commit logs as your author/committer email? That's the one Marcel should use, and that's also the one you need to tell your local git installation to use for commits (you can set that globally or for each repo, see the git documentation). It's better if that's the same email for all your commits.
I already have that account. It's added to the profile as well now. Which is set to primary appears, in the interface, to just set where notifications are sent.
Maybe the primary address is also used for commits you do via the github web interface? I'd guess so, but I'm not sure...

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#99 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Vezzra wrote:Which email do you want to appear in the commit logs as your author/committer email?
I suppose [email protected] makes more sense.
Maybe the primary address is also used for commits you do via the github web interface? I'd guess so, but I'm not sure...
Next to the "Keep my email address private" check in the email settings, it says "We will use [email protected] when performing web-based Git operations and sending email on your behalf."

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#100 Post by Vezzra »

Geoff the Medio wrote:Trying the cleaner import sounds fine. Having a bunch of branches showing up probably has made my attempts to use git so far even more complicated and confusing than they would already have been.
adrian_broher wrote:It should be done tomorrow. Aside from a single quirk I'm happy with the current outcome. It probably takes more time to upload the result, download the backup and investigate the authors map, than it took to fix/cleanup the repository.
Well, that's settled then. :D

The important thing (besides the cleanup of the repo) is that the commits get associated with the github accounts cleanly. That has so far worked best with the <svn-committer-name>@<svn-repo-uuid> email scheme. However, from what I've observed, the public email addresses set in the accounts seem to work equally well. Just avoid those <name>@users.noreply.github.com emails in the commit log... these caused the most troubles.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#101 Post by Dilvish »

I'll add a concurrence to what appears to be the consensus for option 2, and clearing out the large old binaries sounds worthwhile, even if it doesn't matter much to many of us.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#102 Post by Vezzra »

Geoff the Medio wrote:Next to the "Keep my email address private" check in the email settings, it says "We will use [email protected] when performing web-based Git operations and sending email on your behalf."
Hm... maybe try committing something via the web interface (adding a text file with some lorem ipsum stuff ;)) and see what email got used for the commit log? If github really uses the anonymized email, maybe you can set only the gmail address as public/primary?

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#103 Post by Vezzra »

Dilvish wrote:and clearing out the large old binaries sounds worthwhile, even if it doesn't matter much to many of us.
Well, if it's not too much trouble determining exactly which ones qualify as candidates, and removing them without screwing up anything around/connected... I still don't know what binary files we actually are talking about.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#104 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Vezzra wrote:...try committing something via the web interface (adding a text file with some lorem ipsum stuff ;)) and see what email got used for the commit log?
done but I don't presently have a way to view the log, so feel free to check it...

User avatar
adrian_broher
Programmer
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Germany

Re: GitHub migration procedure

#105 Post by adrian_broher »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
Vezzra wrote:...try committing something via the web interface (adding a text file with some lorem ipsum stuff ;)) and see what email got used for the commit log?
done but I don't presently have a way to view the log, so feel free to check it...
Append .patch to the url to see a plain text version.

The 'From:' Key is the canonical author name.

https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... 64bf.patch
Resident code gremlin
Attached patches are released under GPL 2.0 or later.
Git author: Marcel Metz

Post Reply