fineract-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <markus.ge...@live.de>
Subject Re: Missing git history
Date Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:49:22 GMT


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