Community
Participate
Working Groups
With the upcoming ported eclipse projects to the RAP incubator and the upcoming work on RAP 2.0, we need to migrate RAP from CVS to Git. This would facilitate a much smoother workflow for maintenance and development. To accommodate users who could not easily move to a Git team provider, we should also investigate a way to mirror the Git repository on CVS (reverse of the current Git mirror of the CVS repository). http://wiki.eclipse.org/Git/Migrating_to_Git
(In reply to comment #0) > To accommodate users who could not easily move to a Git team provider, we > should also investigate a way to mirror the Git repository on CVS (reverse of > the current Git mirror of the CVS repository). http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-cvsserver.html
The CVS at Eclipse is going to be put into read-only mode soon (bug 358980). Since we'll likely not be able to build 1.5.2 from CVS anymore, I would prefer to switch even before 1.5.0, in order not to be able to use the same build scripts for release and service releases.
I did a quick-and-dirty migration of the complete RAP CVS repository with cvs2git on my local machine, just to find possible pitfalls for a future migration. Since there were some comments with German umlauts, I had to use '--encoding=ascii --encoding=latin1' for the encoding of the comments. Then I sent a list of committer IDs to Ralf. One option is to leave them as they are and use the same ID in the Git comments, but I prefer the other option that we have in Eclipse projects: Full name plus the email address that is registered in the Eclipse Foundation portal. The problem that some people see with this approach is that the email address is available to everyone who clones the Git repository; on the other IMO it is much nicer to see the real name of the people who contributed to a project. That's especially true when you think of services such as GitHub (and Eclipse projects are automatically mirrored there), or Gerrit, etc. But it's up to the project to decide which way to choose. For more information about this and the legal aspects see http://wiki.eclipse.org/Git#Committing_and_pushing
On bug 376696, I suggested to name the tooling repository "o.e.rap.tools". This brings up the question how the runtime repository should be named. Is "rap.runtime" still a suitable name for "RAP itself", or does it stand for the complete stack, including Equinox etc.? How about naming the repository simply "org.eclipse.rap"?
The RAP source code has been successfully migrated to git. This wiki page [1] contains all relevant details. The old CVS is now read-only. [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/RAP/Git
