Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Decontainerizing GIT repos

Hi All

Given the unqualified enthusiasm, let's go for it and hope the GitHub hit doesn't last too long. raised.

NB. Hudson jobs have a reference to the repo in their Configuration.

(See for a very simple reconfig of the QVTd jobs.)


        Ed Willink

On 25/06/2013 23:30, Sergey Boyko wrote:

I also vote for moving GIT repos naming to the current style.
It would be great if symlinks work. Even in case they won't I think it's good time to switch to new GIT naming.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Horacio Hoyos Rodriguez <hhr502@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think we should change the names to the current style. Will the name change force users to change (i.e. get a "invalid repository" error) or will we need to post the new names through the wiki and mailing lists?

The symlink could be use temporally as a solution... although there is nothing more permanent than a temporal solution ...


On 25 June 2013 10:36, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Our GIT repos are currently


The current style is


If we don't change there will come a time when the ancient names become a significant confusion.

If we change, all users must correct their GIT connection details, and GitHub may break. It took over six months for QVTd to recover from the m2m/mmt name change, but maybe the GitHub problems have finally been resolved. (

Do we want to change? If so, shall we use QVTd as a path finder to see how long GitHub takes to catch up?

Maybe we can have a symlink for old accesses.


        Ed Willink
_______________________________________________ mailing list

Horacio Hoyos Rodríguez
EngD Student
University of York

_______________________________________________ mailing list

_______________________________________________ mailing list

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6439 - Release Date: 06/25/13

Back to the top