Re: [tor-dev] Moving ownership to TheTorProject
On 02/20/2014 10:48 AM, vmonmoonshine@gmail.com wrote:
[ Background for tor-dev: I am no longer involved in Stegotorus development. vmon and at least one other person are continuing to work on it; this is currently happening in non-default branches of the copy on my github account. There is also a copy of the repo on gitweb.torproject.org but it has not been updated in quite some time. ] I discussed this with Roger on IRC yesterday and we came to the conclusion that instead of transferring my Stegotorus repo to the "TheTorProject" organizational account, gitweb.torproject.org/stegotorus.git should be promoted to the master copy. I think right now I am the only person with write access to that copy, and I am not sure what the right procedure is for granting you access. I'm also not good enough at Git to know how to copy all branches of remote A into remote B (short of tedious manual actions and/or shell loops). I think this would also entail using Tor's Trac for issues instead of Github's issue tracker. zw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In your git config, you can define a pushurl that is different from url. Which effectively means that you can pull from github but push to tor. So in .git/config, your entry would look something like this (double-check pushurl syntax): [core] repositoryformatversion = 0 filemode = true bare = false logallrefupdates = true [remote "origin"] url = git@github.com:zackw/stegotorus.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* pushurl = zackw@gitweb.torproject.org/stegotorus.git [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master You could also clone to new directory, change the origin to tor, then push each branch. Unless there are just tons of branches, this should only take a couple of minutes =) best, Griffin On 04/01/2014 11:01 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTOtnhAAoJEAPPSgqzx5pjlKgH/AmLj3tHAOPg3VvJaDHAt/Nh ZesH9vJrF2ZdipJhK0QTXnOHsdk5nIxNlnNC/VRLv09At7mzu4X5l9ZvECLlj64f JeQVhHJ4lFj141mc1LabBnGoppYHOssBMS2HZH0ef8pEGyOJwhacYILDuzIfmn1A Zs21V9EKd6WIIyyLtnA5BNNZmMHWSCqVSxbXDMM3Sk8lRupYzD2FF4D6xkdlqW3A WKMBLTA0MTOVDkmJVYv0e65A05hFOv6Fxh/YF41HrgIhjulv6fdK50Y5pFqaKuv6 BU1hU3n80rWPnLjezUj8a/cd2ZliXUVMElAnyoVd41Nprfem2XuJMT3UmgShydQ= =Kdkg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 04/01/2014 11:23 AM, Griffin Boyce wrote:
That's not the issue; the issue is that I am unaware of any good way to tell git to pull or push *all* branches that exist in a particular remote. Your example
would IIUC pull/push only those branches that *already exist* locally. In fact, I don't even know how to get it to *list* all the branches that exist in a remote, whether or not they are tracked in the local copy; when I've had to do this (once before, and never again until I learn a better way) I wound up manually copying and pasting from the branch list on gitweb for the remote in question. zw
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:02:23 +0000, Zack Weinberg wrote: ...
No, a 'git fetch --prune' will fetch all (local[1]) branches on the remote repo and store them as remotes/origin/*. You can see those branches with 'git branch -a'. The --prune makes a local remotes/origin/* branch disappear when the respective branch in the remote vanished.
In fact, I don't even know how to get it to *list* all the branches that exist in a remote, whether or not they are tracked in the local copy;
There are two kind of 'tracking'. One are the 'tracking branches, i.e. the remotes/origin/* branches that mirror ('track') the state of the remote repo. The other is the branch-specific setting for local branches that link a local branch to a specific branch on the remote.
If you actually want to push all local branches to a remote: git push remotename 'refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*' For that, none of those branches should be the current branch in the remote repository. Apply --force or --prune with care and understanding. Andreas [1] 'local branches': Those that aren't remote tracking branches, but show up in 'git branch' without '-a'. -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Hey Zack and Roger, - Why moving: The goal of moving wasn't to disassociate the project from Zack. I wanted to advertise the project link on the volunteer page and I thought, there will be less confusion if it is in the TheTorProject than in Zackw. I asked Arturo to fork Stegotorus in TheTorProject, he said it is simpler if Zackw just moves the repo to TheTorProject. Arturo is the/an admin of TheTorProject AFAIK and he had made Zack a member of the organization the same day. I think that is enough to move the repo. - Why github? I think the question of moving Ooni to tor git came up in Iceland and Arturo was happy with keeping it on TheTorProject github account. So I thought the same logic can be applied to Stegotorus. Reasons: 1) It is less painful to move a repo from a github to a github rather than changing servers. 2) github has this feature that you can comment between the lines of commits that tor git doesn't have. 3) Bureaucratically, I seems easier to give pop-up volunteer write access to the github repo rather than to tor git (this was the case for example when I was a student) - Status of git.torproject.org If for the sake of having less confusion we want to move stegotorus dev to tor git, I can take care of the move if I'm given access to git.torproject.org:/stegotorus. I think either Roger or Zack needs to make a signed ticket for change of owner/write access assigned to weasel, Sebstian or Erinn. I have write access to git.torproject.org:/user/vmon/stegtorus (but not to git.torproject.org:/stegotorus) and historically, I was happy with that but that doesn't accomplish the "less confusion" goal. Thanks everybody, vmon Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> writes:
participants (5)
-
Andreas Krey -
Griffin Boyce -
Ian Goldberg -
vmon＠riseup.net -
Zack Weinberg