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 14:42:46 GMT
The ASF has zero problem if version control contains history that does not
conform to its policies.

The "rules" really come into play when a source [tarball] release is made.
*That* needs to conform. Anything leading up to it ... meh.

Recall: releases are made when (3) PMC members vote +1, which establishes
that release as an official action/release of the Foundation. Something
sitting in version control is not blessed in that way, so it does not
impinge/bother the Foundation and its goals.

Another way to look at it: there is no such thing as a "passive" release.
The ASF rules only apply to voted releases.

Cheers,
-g


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Markus Geiß <markus.geiss@live.de> wrote:

> That is a good question ... I'd assume that given we remove the hard
> dependency
> on Pentaho and change the license headers to Apache, we should fulfill
> legal
> policies, even if the history holds some things that don't comply to them.
>
> Best,
>
> Markus
>
> .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::.
>
> > From: sandervanderheyden@musoni.eu
> > Subject: Re: Missing git history
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:47:31 +0100
> > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > +1 from me on keeping  history, it has proven to be very useful in
> troubleshooting and debugging manier time.
> >
> > I'm not a git guru but sounds like technically it shouldn't be a
> problem. To what extent are there any compilations from a legal and
> licensing perspective?
> >
> > S
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 30 Jan 2016, at 11:49, <markus.geiss@live.de> <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 Geiß <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