I'm trying to deal with pull requests in submission order.
I have pulled #24 but when I tried to pull #25, I got several merge
conflicts that were not obvious as to how they should be resolved. I
suspect it is because #24 was revised but #25 is relative to an older
#24 state.
The result was a truly messed up local repository. The #25 commits were
in a mixed chronological order with regard to #24, mixed with other
separate activity in master and because there are a lot of small commits.
Current state:
All pull requests except #25 and #22 have been pulled.
#22 (NOTICE) needs setting and aligning with a LICENCE, and coupled to
what gets into the binary artifacts. I didn't find dealing with one
part of without coordination with all the necessary changes very helpful
and I prefer to leave the use of any autogenerated files until all are
ready.
And I can't run "mvn verify" in apache-jena-osgi.
Andy
On 03/02/15 11:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
I'm sorry, it is difficult to make a pull request be compatible with
other pull request as I can't tell in advance the merge order, and I
didn't want the file renames to go the wrong way around.
If you want I can recreate #24 from scratch now that you have merged
the #21 and #23. (Thank you!). You don't need the close #24 as I can
do an evil git push --force.
Or we can just let the dual-modules jena-osgi and jena-osgi-test stay
for the 2.13.0 release.
The idea of #24 was not to add a OSGi binary distribution build
(although it would leave an obvious place for it), it just reorganized
the modules as you suggested.
So for NOTICE/LICENSE, we can do that as a separate thread, although I
thought the stub from #22 would be sufficient for now as it covers
exactly the content of the bundle JAR (*.jena, xerces and xml-apis),
and the NOTICE file of apache-jena/ is also done manually. (which does
lead to a maintenance problem, I agree).
To generate NOTICE automatically by Maven can be done, but I'm not
very skilled in the magic here - perhaps others know more. For
jena-osgi the challenge is to play with those scopes so that it's
picks up the correct licenses - we don't want to declare any NOTICE
for say HTTP Components as that is an external dependency that is not
included in the bundle binary.
On 2 February 2015 at 19:23, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
On 02/02/15 17:45, stain wrote:
GitHub user stain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/24
Apache jena osgi
Builds on #21 by splitting out jena-osgi* to submodules under
`apache-jena-osgi`.
Merges in #21, #22, #23
Combined pull requests are harder to work with. They are extra work if not
all the merged PRs are accepted without change.
I'm pulling (and fixing up) #21 and #23 now and have just pushed them intot
he Apache repo.
#22 needs refining and discussion and it's very important
(+ NOTICE doesn't look right to me and there is no LICENSE; maybe
autogenerated works but that's yet more manual checking to do for a build
that takes 30mins from clean).
So I would need to unpick #24. Time consuming, which is why I asked not to
do that.
I'm sorry if I can't deal with these fast enough for you but the extra work
in processing them, sending emails as well as having £work to do makes me
slow.
My ideal situation is to close #22 and #24 for now. We start with a new
baseline of the repo as it is at this moment, post #21 and #23.
We *discuss* what needs to be done for the NOTICE+LICENSE on dev@.
You can PR a rename though I was hoping for other commentary on that as
well. It might be easier to do after N&L is done.
Andy
