incubator-allura-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <d...@brondsema.net>
Subject Re: handling optional GPL dependencies
Date Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:27:51 GMT
On 8/6/12 3:53 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> On 03.08.2012 22:55, Dave Brondsema wrote:
>> On 8/3/12 4:41 PM, Rick Copeland wrote:
>>> As an FYI, ForgeHg is GPL as well due to its Mercurial dependency.
>>>
>> Well that's not fun :)  I didn't expect we'd have such a big GPL
>> dependency.  I don't think we'll want to find or write an alternate
>> Apache library to do the mercurial work, so we may have to split off
>> ForgeHg to somewhere else and not provide it as part of the core Allura.
> How does this affect planned switch to hg as default SCM in Allura?
> Seems kinda contradicting to me:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/allura/tickets/3883/ .
> 
> Also, it's my first post here, so hi everyone.
> 

Hi :)

I don't think it's necessarily contradictory.  We can make Hg, Git, and
SVN all optional tools.  Git & SVN would still be packaged with the rest
of Allura, but not necessary for the base platform (the "Allura"
package) and its tests to run.

I'm sure there are many use-cases where people would want to deploy
Allura without any scm tool.

The downside, is that the platform's SCM support (base models,
controllers and templates) would not have much test coverage on their
own.  They'd still be covered when a specific tool's (hg, git, svn)
tests run.  If that were to be a problem we could also add more tests in
the Allura package, maybe even a dummy scm implementation.

-Dave

-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
              <><

Mime
View raw message