Fair point about existing forks esp as the Apache one is an unstable
name because of incubator-* [1].
Of the 10 forks , GH is tracking most are people who would understand
the move.
Shall we leave it as-is and aim to remove it when the project graduates?
Andy
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/
On 30/03/15 23:03, Peter Ansell wrote:
There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
old-master-before-asf.
I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
Incubator.
On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
clearer IMO.
Andy
On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
the new location.
https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
As the mirroring will go back again to
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now three)
diverged master branches.
On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <[email protected]> wrote:
Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
solution
may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely from
github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master branch
history is alive in our current repo).
On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
it is worth.
A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
identical to the history in the ASF repository.
Cheers,
Peter
On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <[email protected]> wrote:
On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Sergio,
Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks
to
the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the
code
from the repo?
John
I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
the ASF version.
What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
initial transfer period is complete.
Cheers,
Peter
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: [email protected]
w: http://redlink.co
