incubator-allura-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <>
Subject Re: handling optional GPL dependencies
Date Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:22:08 GMT
On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Dave Brondsema <> wrote:
>> On 8/6/12 5:57 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
>> ...
>>> I just did some work on the issue mentioned above (ticket #3883). Patch
>>> needs testing, which I will probably do tomorrow. However, my ultimate
>>> goal is to help Allura's making pypi release as soon as possible, to
>>> ease overall deployment and thus make futher development easier. With
>>> this in mind, if Hg begs for the same treatment as Git and SVN, I would
>>> need to see to it next. I guess final decision on how to handle this
>>> requires futher input from other devs as well?
> Seems that svn and git support should come built-in, since that fits
> within our licensing regime.
> And yeah: if Hg support can be a "plugin" that users can install into
> an Allura installation, then spinning that to another project (on SF,
> I presume) would make sense.
>> Great to hear :)
>> It seems pretty clear to me that the ForgeHg package needs the same
>> treatment (making the core Allura package not depend on it), and even
>> more so: to make it a separate GPL-licensed project/repo.  The only
>> other option I see is to write an Apache-licensed Mercurial library, but
>> that seems unrealistic IMO.
> You never know what motivates people :-P ... entirely possible that
> it'll scratch somebody's itch. I'm assuming that it would be possible,
> and if/when somebody does it in the future, then we could support Hg
> out of the box. Right?

Yep.  Each "tool" is a separate pluggable discoverable python package. We could just bring
it back into the main repo then. (The work Peter's doing on #3883 is to remove some unnecessary
coupling between the core package and the scm tools - tests mostly iirc)
View raw message