[Converge] copy relevant git metadata from joyent/node

[rvagg]

See also nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#25876

Marking this for 4.0.0 milestone. This is about being able to cut releases for 0.10 and 0.12 from here but also for preserving proper history.

[rvagg]

both v0.10 and v0.12 were frankenbranches in this repo, a mess from the early days of node-forward. I've saved them as archived-io.js-v0.10 and archived-io.js-v0.12 respectively so as not to lose anything that might be in there that wasn't copied to active dev branches as well (mostly it looks like commits were landed in two places each time).

I've pushed current HEADs of v0.10 and v0.12 from joyent/node to this repo

[rvagg]

I'm sure there's a more sophisticated way but

git push origin `git tag | grep 'v0.1[02]'`

all the 0.10 and 0.12 tags are there now

[rvagg]

Again, this is pretty brute-force but:

for branch in `git ls-remote joyent | grep -E 'refs/heads/v0\.1[02]\.\d+-release' | awk -F/ '{ print $NF }'`; do
  git checkout joyent/${branch}
  git checkout -b ${branch}
  git push origin ${branch}
done

the release branches are pretty important so they should be copied over even though we stopped using them since about io.js v1.0.4.

[rvagg]

we need to be able to show that we can cut 0.10 and 0.12 releases from this repo before this issue can be closed, until then, joyent/node is still active and can't be archived.

[rvagg]

Assigning this to myself, tho I'll probably need to lean on @orangemocha to make sure I get this done properly.

[orangemocha]

The script LGTM. Perhaps we need to add the option --follow-tags to the git push command, and make sure we fetch --tags from joyent in the beginning.

[orangemocha]

This is the list I am getting:

refs/heads/v0.10
refs/heads/v0.10.0-release
refs/heads/v0.10.1-release
refs/heads/v0.10.10-release
refs/heads/v0.10.11-release
refs/heads/v0.10.12-release
refs/heads/v0.10.13-release
refs/heads/v0.10.14-release
refs/heads/v0.10.15-release
refs/heads/v0.10.16-release
refs/heads/v0.10.17-release
refs/heads/v0.10.18-release
refs/heads/v0.10.19-release
refs/heads/v0.10.2-release
refs/heads/v0.10.20-release
refs/heads/v0.10.21-release
refs/heads/v0.10.22-release
refs/heads/v0.10.23-release
refs/heads/v0.10.24-release
refs/heads/v0.10.25-release
refs/heads/v0.10.26-release
refs/heads/v0.10.27-release
refs/heads/v0.10.28-release
refs/heads/v0.10.29-release
refs/heads/v0.10.3-release
refs/heads/v0.10.30-release
refs/heads/v0.10.31-release
refs/heads/v0.10.32-release
refs/heads/v0.10.33-release
refs/heads/v0.10.34-release
refs/heads/v0.10.35-release
refs/heads/v0.10.36-release
refs/heads/v0.10.37-release
refs/heads/v0.10.38-release
refs/heads/v0.10.39-release
refs/heads/v0.10.4-release
refs/heads/v0.10.40-release
refs/heads/v0.10.5-release
refs/heads/v0.10.6-release
refs/heads/v0.10.7-release
refs/heads/v0.10.8-release
refs/heads/v0.10.9-release
refs/heads/v0.11.0-release
refs/heads/v0.11.1-release
refs/heads/v0.11.10-release
refs/heads/v0.11.11-release
refs/heads/v0.11.12-release
refs/heads/v0.11.13-release
refs/heads/v0.11.14-release
refs/heads/v0.11.15-release
refs/heads/v0.11.16-release
refs/heads/v0.11.2-release
refs/heads/v0.11.3-release
refs/heads/v0.11.4-release
refs/heads/v0.11.5-release
refs/heads/v0.11.6-release
refs/heads/v0.11.7-release
refs/heads/v0.11.8-release
refs/heads/v0.11.9-release
refs/heads/v0.12
refs/heads/v0.12.0-release
refs/heads/v0.12.1-release
refs/heads/v0.12.2-release
refs/heads/v0.12.3-release
refs/heads/v0.12.4-release
refs/heads/v0.12.5-release
refs/heads/v0.12.6-release
refs/heads/v0.12.7-release

/cc @misterdjules

[orangemocha]

I have tweaked the script a bit. If the list looks good, I can make the push as part of nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#25876 or even before.

[Fishrock123]

@orangemocha what is missing here now? I see basically everything, just not pre-0.10.0 tags.

[orangemocha]

Probably nothing. I didn't realize @rvagg had already done the push. I will do an update as part of nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#25876

[Fishrock123]

I think @mikeal said we'd also need pre 0.10.0 info?

[rvagg]

yes, probably a good idea, the patterns using for tagging & branching probably aren't as straight forward as for 0.10 and 0.12 where the practices were very consistent