Comment 1 Mickael Istria 2011-10-05 12:45:23 EDT

Given that some people at Montages are working hard on improving GMF-Tooling and providing new stuff for it, moving to Git could help save to save lot of time when it is time to merge their work.
Git is good to support several kinds of works on a project (maintenance, new features, eperiments...) at the same time. I think it will soon fit much better to the different profiles of contributors there are for GMF Tooling.

Comment 2 Mickael Istria 2011-11-04 06:02:37 EDT

So, I think it is the right time to perform this migration.
Looking at this: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Git/Migrating_to_Git it seems like the best way to go ahead for GMF-Tooling is to start the Git repo, commit the HEAD revision to Git, and archive the CVS. I don't think we need to migrate the CVS history to Git: this would make migration more difficult, and I personnally don't look at older code often to make it useful to put huge effort in it.
Of course, the CVS history will still be accessible, in read-only.

So, Michael, do you think we are ready to go ahead, and simply archive the CVS?

Comment 3 Michael Golubev 2011-11-04 06:51:54 EDT

I am +1 in general for migration. 

However I would prefer to ship the M3 first and get back to the Juno train. 

According to the plan, we have M3 scheduled for Nov, 11, so I would suggest to do migration early in M4, preferrably during the first week of M. What do you think?

Comment 4 Mickael Istria 2011-11-04 06:56:41 EDT

It highly depends on how difficult the migration is. If it is just about one day of work, then it's probably fine to do it before M3.
However, if you have plan to make big commits before M3 that you prefer to do using CVS to avoid getting late because of migrating your workspace and so on to Git, we can wait for this contribution to be done.

Comment 5 Michael Golubev 2011-11-16 10:09:51 EST

Migration completed, old CVS repo is read-only now.

Comment 6 Michael Golubev 2012-05-30 00:14:31 EDT

Updated for project plan