incubator-allura-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: handling optional GPL dependencies
Date Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:26:55 GMT
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?


View raw message