I am not sure where to send these questions, but since we’re talking about moving the source, I thought I might as well send this now.



Will the original homepage of MASON still be the same?



Are we still maintaining (i.e., updating) the sections PROJECTS and PUBLICATIONS that use MASON? 





> On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Luís de Sousa <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

> Hi Sean, hi all,

> 

> First of all let me just express my joy for this decision. I believe

> it can create an interesting dynamic around MASON.

> 

> Regarding your question, I do not have the experience myself, but it

> seems the folk at GitHub have taken some care to guarantee things go

> smoothly. They enforce a particular repository structure clearly

> defining where branches and tags  reside:

> 

> https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-support

> 

> Thus all svn actions should unequivocally map to a git action (or set

> of actions), avoiding unexpected repository states.

> 

> Naturally, svn lacks loads of interesting stuff existing in git, such

> as stashing, sub-modules, etc. If one of these modern things is pushed

> to GitHub, then whomever accesses the repository with svn might start

> missing some of the fun.

> 

> Regards,

> 

> Luís

> 

> 

> On 4 June 2015 at 15:21, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> So I'm thinking we may migrate ecj and mason to GitHub, which has dual git/SVN access.  I'll probably still maintain things in SVN, but if you're into git you can access the repositories that way.

>> 

>> I imagine read/write from SVN and *read* from git works fine.  But does anyone with experience in this model know how well doing read/write from both git and svn works in reality?

>> 

>> Sean