2015-04-01 2:02 GMT+02:00 Peter Ansell <[email protected]>: > Keeping both available for now, with the current three messages (URL, > last commit, and the top of the README.md) on the > commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository that indicate the project has been > moved, is useful for a migration period. > > With Git it doesn't matter about the exact timescales for keeping > commons-rdf/commons-rdf in sync with apache/incubator-commonsrdf, as > merging is trivial and pushing is also trivial. Hence, if a fork uses > commons-rdf/commons-rdf as a source, they will not be months out of > date. At most they will be days out of date. > > FWIW, I don't mind being the one to push master to > commons-rdf/commons-rdf for a while. It is one extra quick command > that I have done in the past for other projects with similarly > fragmented designs and with Git it really isn't a hassle. > > We could turn issues off, but there is a substantial chunk of the > project history that is only available there, so it would be easier > for everyones sake to leave them there. > > GitHub doesn't allow Pull Requests to be turned off, as that is not > the point of their system. If we get Pull Requests there, we will > merge them the same way we are currently merging Pull Requests, using > "git merge --no-ff" on the command line. We can't use the GitHub > interface to merge pull requests for apache/incubator-commonsrdf > anyway, per the overall design where a push to git-wip triggers the > update at GitHub, so in terms of where Pull Requests come in from, > there is no difference. > > I suggest that we leave it how it is until graduation from the > incubator, when we notify all of the remaining forks of > commons-rdf/commons-rdf where the current repository is at that stage, > as apache/incubator-commonsrdf isn't a permanent fixture anyway, so we > would be reducing the administrative hassle for them from 2 (or more) > fork changes to a single fork change. > > I doubt that we would be able to transfer a repository in and then > have it converted to the special "mirror" repositories, and doing so > doesn't help with merging pull requests anyway. >
FWIW, we already have an empty repo [1] waiting for you after incubation. Benedikt [1] git://git.apache.org/commons-rdf.git > > > > On 31 March 2015 at 21:55, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm OK with the git rm +README approach on a non-master default branch > > so that it appears at https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/ in > > the browser. > > > > I am not too big fan of keeping > > https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/master in sync with > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/tree/master - who will > > be doing that? Can it be a cron-job somewhere? > > > > What happens if we get issues and pull requests on the > > commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository? Should we turn those features off? > > > > There is a danger of turning the project structure upside down - we > > just transferred commons-rdf to Apache and presumably now the project > > is run within AFS, using these mailing lists etc - yet the old github > > project keeps living on, appearing as a kind of "proper Commons-RDF" > > project where commits to the incubator projects might trickle down > > only when one of the (smaller set of) original committers updates it. > > > > The git rm approach on master might sound cruel to the forks - but > > anyone doing 'git pull' should then notice the change and pick it up > > again from the new location (and hopefully sign up to this mailing > > list). It's not too hard hard to undo the result of this rm locally > > with git. > > > > > > Ideally I think we would have used the GitHub "Transfer" button in > > GitHub to transfer it to Apache (this sets up redirects even at git > > pull level) - but that might not work well with the git.apache.org > > synchronization. I'll check with INFRA if that is something they want > > to do -- what are your views- should we do that if possible? (That > > should presumably then also be possible when we loose the "incubator-" > > prefix) > > > > On 31 March 2015 at 10:39, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Stian Soiland-Reyes > > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
