fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Missing git history
Date Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:19:14 GMT
Yup. Take two or three steps, to keep it all connected.

IMO, taking some extra days to ensure history is retained, is very
worthwhile.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Vishwas Babu <
vishwas@confluxtechnologies.com> wrote:

> Adi,
>
> Committing files after package rename (and prior to any other changes
> involving licencing) should be sufficient for git to recognize that the
> file was moved.
>
> Regards,
> Vishwas
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Adi Raju <
> adi.raju@confluxtechnologies.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vishwas/Markus,
> >
> > As markus mentioned, the commit we did on our remote, did not consider
> the
> > file rename.
> > Till commit, git status displayed the changes as rename(move), but post
> > commit it started showing as add/delete.
> > May be this was due to amount of change.
> >
> > Such a commit wouldn't help anyone to merge changes into their fork.
> >
> > If change history is important and contributor history is important, give
> > me time till monday and i will see if doing the changes in multiple
> commits
> > will preserve the change history.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adi
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, <markus.geiss@live.de> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I can understand your concern ... and if we agree on doing so ... I'm
> > fine
> > > with reverting the changes ... clean the repo again ... and pull in
> > develop
> > > only ...
> > >
> > >
> > > I did not say that keeping the history in general is a risk, all I've
> > said
> > > is keeping the history as it is now holds some risk.
> > >
> > >
> > > Aside from that keeping the history only to keep contributors mentioned
> > is
> > > not an argument to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > >
> > > .:: YAGNI likes a DRY KISS ::.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:26 AM -0800, "Vishwas Babu" <
> > > vishwas@confluxtechnologies.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Markus,
> > >
> > > I would assume that redoing the same, i.e changing the package
> structure
> > in
> > > an IDE and then re-licencing (a search replace) shouldn't take much
> time
> > at
> > > all for the core team.
> > >
> > > Anyone maintaining a fork would be conversant enough with GIT to
> > understand
> > > what he / she are doing. Given that the fineract community isn't
> forcing
> > > someone to use the new codebase as their upstream, I do not buy the
> > > argument that this is a high risk for the community.
> > >
> > > The Mifos community has always ensured that all releases are merged
> back
> > > into both master / develop branch. So migrating any one of them to
> > fineract
> > > is all that a fork maintainer would need to update his fork.
> > >
> > > Further, if you would poll the top 5 contributors to the Mifos platform
> > > (myself included), I am sure that all things being equal we would all
> > want
> > > to maintain the commit history, unless there is a real reason to not do
> > so.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vishwas
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Markus GeiƟ <markus.geiss@live.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vishwas,
> > > >
> > > > given that the core team has done the renaming and relicensing in one
> > > > commit,
> > > > git would not be able to detect the move. All files will be detached
> > from
> > > > the history
> > > > anyways. Git compares files by tree and their BLOB, the changed files
> > > lead
> > > > to a
> > > > new BLOB in a new tree so git would recognize them as new not changed
> > > > files.
> > > >
> > > > The risk to 'act' like there is a history and others using the Apache
> > > repo
> > > > as the new
> > > > upstream, loosing there files by accident b/c the files are 'deleted'
> > was
> > > > simply too
> > > > high.
> > > >
> > > > If we like to preserve the history all changes need to be reverted
> and
> > > > every single step
> > > > needs to be in its own commit.
> > > >
> > > > It would also not be feasible to move the whole repo over, because we
> > > only
> > > > can move
> > > > the recent develop. All open branches, and release branches should
> not
> > be
> > > > moved
> > > > for clarity reasons and to avoid confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Markus
> > > >
> > > > .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:02:26 +0530
> > > > > Subject: Re: Missing git history
> > > > > From: vishwas@confluxtechnologies.com
> > > > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Markus,
> > > > >
> > > > > Git does an excellent job of recognizing renamed files. Merging
> forks
> > > > with
> > > > > the new package structure is a very straightforward process.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the issue with retaining the commit history ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Vishwas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:29 AM, <markus.geiss@live.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Vishwas,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The repackeging led to a delete and add of all files anyways,
so
> a
> > > > simple
> > > > > > fetch merge could cause more harm than the creation of a new
fork
> > and
> > > > > > manually transfer made changes to the code that never where
> > > contributed
> > > > > > back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition I'd suggest to do future code enhancements in a
way
> > that
> > > > > > allows either a contribution back or keeps the forked base clean
> > and
> > > > > > mergable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Markus
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .:: YAGNI likes a DRY KISS ::.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Vishwas Babu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 02:46
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Missing git history
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract doesn't carry over
> > the
> > > > commit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > history from https://github.com/openMF/mifosx.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that the MifosX platform has been around for a few years
> now,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > numerous organizations maintain multiple forks of the same .
> > Without
> > > > the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit history being carried over, upgrading these forks becomes
> an
> > > > > >
> > > > > > unnecessarily painful process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, the contribution history of around 78 volunteers to the
> > > original
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MifosX project is lost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any reason for initializing fineract as a new git
> > > repository ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vishwas
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message