incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Stahl <...@openoffice.org>
Subject Re: An svn question
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:47:21 GMT
On 27.06.2011 10:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 26.06.2011 23:15, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 23.06.2011 19:15, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>> Another option would be to commit the initial source code (the code that
>>> is directly retrieved from the software grant from Oracle) into a local
>>> Mercurial repository, add all the patches and then convert this into an
>>> svn repository.
>>
>> hmm... perhaps we could first merge all CWSes that are
>> nominated/finished anyway into the HG OOO340 repo, then import the
>> result into SVN...
>
> We can't look at this only from a technical POV. We also should try to
> avoid more legal work as this will slow down the integration. As I
> wrote, patches are easy as they are owned by those who made them, on
> whatever files. And as long as the base where you apply the patches to
> is "clean", you can't get into legal trouble.

actually i don't see a difference between the two approaches (but as you 
know IANAL).
consider that the original SGA only lists _part_ of the repository.  so, 
in order to get anything useful that can actually build we need to ask 
for additional stuff anyway.

if we have all the rights to the Oracle owned files in OOO340 + all 
outstanding CWSes, does it really make a difference if we first merge 
the CWSes in HG and then import the result, or whether we do it the 
other way around?

the result should be the same, but with merging first the history will 
be much more useful, plus it's less work.

the stuff that we need to remove from the repo can be removed either 
before merging the CWSes (if a CWS changes a removed file there will be 
a conflict on merge), or after; can't see much of a difference here.

regards,
  michael


Mime
View raw message