Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CABD8fLUkcE6xiRdDiEFL+0vyMUVj4Qv=SDnu2XusdK_Vu8_oMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Git and Provenance
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f993017b5460556328513"
archived-at: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 23:51:21 -0000

--001a113f993017b5460556328513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hey all,

Just wanted to confirm my thoughts about provenance, as recorded (or
deleted!) by the git tool.

The short answer is that git, unlike svn, allows a PMC to remove certain
types of development history. The master/develop branch cannot be modified
(generally), but any development that occurs on a branch can be lost.

At least a couple forms of loss that I can think of:

1) a series of commits to a branch are "squashed" into a single commit,
then merged to master. then, the branch is deleted. we no longer have the
individual commits.

2) a branch is used to construct a release, and is later deleted.

There are likely other scenarios, but having even one is enough for my
query/discussion.

The ASF will capture email diffs and push logs of all changes made, to all
branches. These are stored in our email archives and in a push log
database. So provenance might not be stored entirely in the repository, but
we still have all the data (caveat: bugs in our recording).

I believe this is sufficient for the Foundation's needs.

Given the various bits above, the Infrastructure Team doesn't have any
plans to change things, but I felt it best to confirm/ask.

Thanks,
Greg Stein
Infrastructure Administrator, ASF


ps. IMO, we have very little need for provenance/history; in actuality,
this seems more like data for downstream users, in the event of (legal)
trouble

--001a113f993017b5460556328513
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hey all,<div><br></div><div>Just wanted to confirm my thou=
ghts about provenance, as recorded (or deleted!) by the git tool.</div><div=
><br></div><div>The short answer is that git, unlike svn, allows a PMC to r=
emove certain types of development history. The master/develop branch canno=
t be modified (generally), but any development that occurs on a branch can =
be lost.</div><div><br></div><div>At least a couple forms of loss that I ca=
n think of:</div><div><br></div><div>1) a series of commits to a branch are=
 &quot;squashed&quot; into a single commit, then merged to master. then, th=
e branch is deleted. we no longer have the individual commits.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>2) a branch is used to construct a release, and is later delet=
ed.</div><div><br></div><div>There are likely other scenarios, but having e=
ven one is enough for my query/discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>The ASF=
 will capture email diffs and push logs of all changes made, to all branche=
s. These are stored in our email archives and in a push log database. So pr=
ovenance might not be stored entirely in the repository, but we still have =
all the data (caveat: bugs in our recording).</div><div><br></div><div>I be=
lieve this is sufficient for the Foundation&#39;s needs.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Given the various bits above, the Infrastructure Team doesn&#39;t ha=
ve any plans to change things, but I felt it best to confirm/ask.</div><div=
><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Greg Stein</div><div>Infrastructure Admin=
istrator, ASF</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>ps. IMO, we have very=
 little need for provenance/history; in actuality, this seems more like dat=
a for downstream users, in the event of (legal) trouble</div><div><br></div=
></div>

--001a113f993017b5460556328513--