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:
> 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.
> 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?