Hi Jorge, I think especially for the second case, it might be better to keep things on branches in the repro even if they aren't quite mergeable. Even for the first case, I would potentially aim for the "closest possible" repo with a new branch.
I think standalone repos tend to indicate a higher level of maturity/commitment to casual observers that these experiments are meant to represent (even clearly documented experimental repos). I think once the project reaches some level of maturity and there is broader community commitment the decision/technical part can be made to spinning new repos. Again, this isn't based on any data or any real experience so I'm happy for whoever wants to try out the process to go the way they see fit. I also guess there might be some technical implications for some languages based on branches/repos. Cheers, Micah On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:44 AM Jorge Cardoso Leitão < jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Micah, > > For code that is mergeable, I would say that a branch is superior, as it > keeps lineage and thus enables rebasing. IMO there are two use-cases for > this mechanism: > > * create a new component from scratch (e.g. Ballista, bindings to language > Z, python-datafusion). > * re-write an existing implementation / component, with no intentions of > being mergeable in the traditional sense. > > Operationally, the first case would be things like mv new_repo/* > old_repo/component/ > The second case would be for things like rm -rf old_repo/*; mv new_repo/* > old_repo/ or "this repo is now official code, old is in maintenance mode". > > Best, > Jorge > > > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:40 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Jorge, >> Thanks for doing this. >> >> One question that springs to mind: For work that is mostly intended to be >> merged back to an existing Arrow repo what are the trade-offs between >> brand >> new repos as compared to a separate branch in existing one in an existing >> one? >> >> Cheers, >> Micah >> >> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 9:31 PM Jorge Cardoso Leitão < >> jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > As discussed in other threads (rust sync and parquet2), I would like to >> > open the discussion around opening repos for experimental work that may >> or >> > may not be merged / used. >> > >> > The rationale is that we incentivise work to be conducted within ASF and >> > Apache Arrows' governance, thereby clarifying the context and >> governance of >> > that work, while still offering the freedoms that people enjoy when >> > creating a new repo on their personal accounts. >> > >> > I wrote a draft proposal here: [1] >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDTWezkKkmOQ3HQeX8NhaXbKZLeuwcyFdC4ZA7ZatDY/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > Best, >> > Jorge >> > >> >
