What would the mechanics of a sapling split be? Should I split out the files into their own repo and then merge that in with our repo? If preserving history is important, would you mind leaving a comment on the review?
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <[email protected]> wrote: > That's actually a good point, which reminds me to ask about the commit > history. Any chance to do a sapling split to preserve history? > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Zameer Manji <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maxim, > > > > I really think it is important to minimize the changes made to the > twitter > > commons files so one can reference the twitter commons sha bc7248d to see > > the history of the files. > > > > I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1442 to track > updating > > the copyright headers and moving the files into the namespace. > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I am afraid the upcoming namespace changing sweeper is going to be > >> even more monstrous as it will touch all of commons and almost all of > >> the aurora codebase. > >> > >> One alternative could be bring all commons in with all headers and > >> apache namespace changes but still reference published external > >> commons jars on aurora side. Then switch to internal commons and > >> adjust aurora imports as a follow up. That would at least avoid the > >> churn in commons files. > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Henry Saputra <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > +1 for doing it in follow up commit > >> > > >> > On Friday, August 21, 2015, Zameer Manji <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jake, > >> >> > >> >> Can the namespace rename be done in a follow up commit? Otherwise the > >> >> review/commit touches every single Java file and becomes very > difficult > >> to > >> >> understand. > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Jake Farrell <[email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Since the IP has been donated to the ASF the namespace > >> com/twitter/common > >> >> > has to be switch to the Apache namespace org/apache/aurora > >> >> > > >> >> > -Jake > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Zameer Manji <[email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I was able to put up the review for the fork: > >> >> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/37666/. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look if you are interested. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Sweeney < > [email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > +1, I suspect we'll find several things that can be replaced by > >> the > >> >> > Java > >> >> > > 8 > >> >> > > > standard library or newer versions of Guava and Guice. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Zameer Manji < > [email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Just to be clear, I'm proposing forking the java parts only. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Joseph Smith < > >> [email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Also a (tough to concede) +1. Although I’m not a fan of the > >> fork, > >> >> > it > >> >> > > > will > >> >> > > > > > help improve velocity and empower a migration away from > >> twitter > >> >> > > common. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Bill Farner < > [email protected] > >> >> <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > That's roughly the eventual plan, which this move would > >> help us > >> >> > > > > > facilitate. > >> >> > > > > > > We use guava heavily already, most of our current > >> dependence is > >> >> > on > >> >> > > ZK > >> >> > > > > > and args handling code...but we would look towards > dep-shallow > >> >> > > > > alternatives. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > _____________________________ > >> >> > > > > > > From: Chris Aniszczyk <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 8:03 AM > >> >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Forking twitter-commons into our tree > >> >> > > > > > > To: <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > > > > > Cc: Jake Farrell <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I'll see what I can do about IP clearance. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > For giggles, how much work do you think it would be to > shed > >> >> > > > > > twitter-commons > >> >> > > > > > > and just rely on guava and other what I would consider > more > >> >> > > standard > >> >> > > > > > > libraries. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Bill Farner < > >> >> [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Thanks, Jake! > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> -=Bill > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jake Farrell < > >> >> > [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >>> yes, makes it easier to donate when its Apache License > >> 2.0, > >> >> but > >> >> > > > still > >> >> > > > > > >>> requires the IP clearance [1], which is handled through > >> the > >> >> > IPMC. > >> >> > > > > This > >> >> > > > > > is > >> >> > > > > > >>> required so there is an audit trail of that software > being > >> >> > > donated > >> >> > > > to > >> >> > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > >>> ASF > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> -Jake > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> [1]: > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Bill Farner < > >> >> > [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>> Jake - i'm not fully versed on licenses, but is that > true > >> >> even > >> >> > > > > though > >> >> > > > > > >>> it's > >> >> > > > > > >>>> all Apache License 2.0? > >> >> > > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>> -=Bill > >> >> > > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Jake Farrell < > >> >> > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> no objections, but we would have to get an IP > clearance > >> doc > >> >> > > from > >> >> > > > > > >>> Twitter > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> for this code in order to bring this code into the > ASF > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> -Jake > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Zameer Manji < > >> >> > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hey, > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Aurora depends heavily on twitter-commons for lots > of > >> >> > > > > > >> functionality. > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> However upstream is not very active and I suspect > that > >> it > >> >> > will > >> >> > > > be > >> >> > > > > > >>> less > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> active in the future. Currently we depend on > artifacts > >> >> > > published > >> >> > > > > > >> from > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> this > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> project which causes us to depend on older versions > of > >> >> guava > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > > > >>> guice. > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> As a result, it seems that will be difficult to > address > >> >> > > tickets > >> >> > > > > > >> like > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> AURORA-1380 < > >> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1380> > >> >> > > > > > >>>> without > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> changing something. I propose we fork all of the > java > >> >> > portions > >> >> > > > of > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> twitter-commons into our tree, remove the parts we > >> don't > >> >> use > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > > > >>> update > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> guava and guice so we can move forward on this > front. > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> What are people's thoughts on this? > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> -- > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Zameer Manji > >> >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > > Cheers, > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Chris Aniszczyk > >> >> > > > > > > http://aniszczyk.org > >> >> > > > > > > +1 512 961 6719 > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > Zameer Manji > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > <%2B1%20512%20961%206719> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -- > >> >> > > > Zameer Manji > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Zameer Manji > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> -- > >> Zameer Manji > >> > >> > > -- > Zameer Manji > >
