www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: git and deleting branches
Date Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:28:50 GMT
Oh calm down Marvin.  None of this is being hotly debated at this point, particularly none
of jochens concerns are.

What is happening internally is a measured and mostly rational conversation about generic
policy matters, some of which tangentially touch on this issue.  But jochen's concern certainly
hasn't been kicked around in any detail yet so sure why not discuss it here since projects
are experiencing the ramifications as we speak.

The problem is that when we created the git infra at apache, we intended for projects to use
the master branch and a select set of other references to be considered protected from history
modification.   Originally I believe the thinking was to protect the entire repo but that
was considered too invasive by people smarter than me.

So while what we came up with was essentially limitations on a few select reference namespaces,
it turned out that many projects were either explicitly avoiding those references, or their
tooling led them to make alternate choices when it came to the use of the master branch for
development.  In effect our policies were being circumvented so someone made a call to deal
with the situation and that leads us to where we are today.  In no way should this be viewed
as a permanent change, but one that level sets the problem across the board.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:
>> Do we really want a case-by-case discussion what can be deleted and what not
>> by using INFRA tickets? Or what procedure is supposed to be used?
> This topic is being hotly debated on private lists right now
> (board@apache, members@apache, and others).  One of the principles
> that has been articulated is that whatever regime ultimately gets put
> in place, the integrity of the ASF's provenance data cannot depend on
> individuals adhering to best practices.
> Unfortunately, as a non-Member you are excluded from that debate. I
> can't provide you with links so that you may study the rationale
> behind those decisions. And though specific policy language is
> currently under consideration, you cannot participate in drafting or
> review.
> Marvin Humphrey

View raw message