Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
INFRA have started renaming Git repos when a PMC moves to the Attic. They say this is because Attic asked for write access to the repos. I don't think we need write access any more; in any case renaming the Git repo breaks existing URLs. I think the repos should be reverted to their original names to restore the links. Sebb.
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further code development will be done. I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage that is caused by the rename are compelling. Craig > On Mar 30, 2021, at 3:32 AM, sebb wrote: > > INFRA have started renaming Git repos when a PMC moves to the Attic. > > They say this is because Attic asked for write access to the repos. > > I don't think we need write access any more; in any case renaming the > Git repo breaks existing URLs. > > I think the repos should be reverted to their original names to > restore the links. > > Sebb. Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
yes, many improvements in the process were done in recent years to avoid requiring write access (because this was the step in the process that was the most time/energy consuming between Attic members and infra) now that requiring write access means not only cumbersome efforts but also breaking Git repositories for end users (by renaming), yes, I'm confident we're sufficiently prepared to say that we don't need write access at all regards, Hervé Le mercredi 31 mars 2021, 02:02:58 CEST sebb a écrit : > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote: > > > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No > > > further code development will be done. > > > > > > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent > > > experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the > > > damage that is caused by the rename are compelling.> > > I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small > > text changes were committed by attic after the fact. > > Yes, we used to fix up the DOAP and RDF files, but we now use > overrides which are much simpler. > (and a long time ago we used to have to edit all the web pages to add > the banner) > > > My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the > > original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was > > discussed very long ago so the details are hazy. > > Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access > by Attic people. > I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo. > > This would allow Attic access and deny project access. > > Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which > happens anyway). > > Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better > ways to manage it than renaming the repo. > For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted. > > I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt > with. > > vh > > > > Mads Toftum > > -- > > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote: > > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further > > code development will be done. > > > > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent > > experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage > > that is caused by the rename are compelling. > > > I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small > text changes were committed by attic after the fact. Yes, we used to fix up the DOAP and RDF files, but we now use overrides which are much simpler. (and a long time ago we used to have to edit all the web pages to add the banner) > My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the > original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was > discussed very long ago so the details are hazy. Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access by Attic people. I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo. This would allow Attic access and deny project access. Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which happens anyway). Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better ways to manage it than renaming the repo. For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted. I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt with. > vh > > Mads Toftum > -- > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote: > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further > code development will be done. > > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent > experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage > that is caused by the rename are compelling. > I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small text changes were committed by attic after the fact. My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was discussed very long ago so the details are hazy. vh Mads Toftum -- http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
