Am 26.04.2015 18:45, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
[...]
This is not a question of traceability. It's just that when Github wil
shutdown, or close their repository, we won't be dead in the water, as
we have the main repository on *our* servers.
And if it sounds hypothetical, then think about what happened recently
to codehaus...
Git is not subversion. If codehaus suddenly had shutdown, we would have
still local copies of the repository (even ignoring that github already
was the main repo and codehaus only a copy). In git everyone has the
full repo locally as well, as long as it is updated. You can do shallow
copies in git, but they are not standard.
From the legal POV, the ASF distribute sources, and provide protection
to committers by the means of being able to exhibit the full history.
Again, if github decides to just limit the project history to, say, one
year, we would be dead in the water again. And again, if it seems
spurious to keep all the history, know that we are sometime asked to
provide this source history in court.
Same story if for example the repository gets corrupted by file errors
in a way that allows still the usage of the repo, but some data has been
altered. Though, such things can imho happen on Apache as well
Last, not least, we protect *committers* against any legal action,
committers being voted people. Being able to give access to a selected
number of person who have signed a CCLA/ICLA is a key for The ASF,
something you are not likely to be able to enforce in github (and if you
can, again, we have no guarantee we can control such protecion for ever)
Well, following this strictly we should never ever merge pull requests
from github
Hope it clarifies why we push commits to the ASF Git repository.
You mean clarifies why we have to push commits to the ASF Git repository
as primary repository.... and not really to be frank.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
