river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:16:55 GMT
+1 for Bryan’s PR/GitHub email.  I don’t see any way we couldn’t attribute any code change
to some user with a CLA active at any given time.

I don’t think the attic represents defeat, I’m reluctant to let it go to the attic but
right now it seems that more work is being done on the ASF administrative stuff than actual
code.  That’s not a criticism of Peter or anyone else and all the effort has been put into
various branches and so on.  Rather it’s a statement of fact that there are very few us
and we’re all busy.

River could always be taken back out of the attic should a new community grow around it.

I would be tempted to vote for the attic, whilst simultaneously moving River code (v3 if Peter
is willing) into a GitHub repo and give the current PMC/committers read/write access to it.
 (Those that want it, of course.)  Provide a link from the ASF page to GitHub and back again.
 We can carry on much the same as before, but without the overhead of filing reports and so
on.  As long as we stick to Bryan’s PR rules below, there shouldn’t be any problem giving
any changes we eventually make back to the ASF should it be decided to do so.

The attic isn’t a defeat, it’s an evolution.

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 13:51, Bryan Thompson <bryan@blazegraph.com> wrote:
> 
> GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking.  It is a matter of how you
> define policy for PRs.  We do not accept PRs unless the author is a
> contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project.  So it works out very
> nicely for us.  Every single commit and its authorship remains visible and
> that metadata can be easily accessed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan
> 
> On Jul 5, 2016 2:12 AM, "Patricia Shanahan" <pats@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/5/2016 1:26 AM, Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> Can we move to git, without moving to GitHub?
>>> 
>> 
>> Not currently. There is an experiment underway for a system that uses
>> GitHub with an Apache-controlled mirror. I will look again at the status of
>> that project.
>> 
>> We can get a read-only git mirror. See http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html
>> 
>> 
>>> https://www.linux.com/blog/apache-hadoop-transitions-git
>>> 
>>> A concern I have with moving to GitHub is DCMA take down notices and IP:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/github/dmca
>>> 
>>> The Apache foundation provides us with legal support as well as
>>> governance.
>>> 
>> 
>> The git and legal issues are very closely related. One of Apache's
>> objectives is to be able to tie every change in any Apache code to a
>> license agreement. The foundation wants to be able to say, for example
>> "That block of code was checked in on date X by person Y, and here is an
>> ICLA from Y that was in effect on date X."
>> 
>> As I understand the issue, normal Git is too flexible to give the required
>> provenance tracking.
>> 
>> 
>>> I always thought we could find a common code base that people can agree
>>> on, without hobbling the abilities or ambitions of those that want to do
>>> more.
>>> 
>>> The next steps for me, when I have time, will be to update trunk version
>>> to River 2.3.0 from River 3.0.0, update the release notes, generate and
>>> sign the release artifacts with our new code signing certs, that Apache
>>> recently paid for, for our next round of voting.
>>> 
>>> I'm not ready to admit defeat yet, that's what the attic represents.
>>> The project has survived longer periods of stagnation or disagreement in
>>> the past, such as during incubation and become active again.
>>> 
>> 
>> OK - I'll wait to see what happens.
>> 
>> Patricia
>> 


Mime
View raw message