Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)
--- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: ... A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with header changes in the history. Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's therefore essential to know why a header was changed and by whom. And of course the branch would be on SVN so the history for the legal changes wouldn't be lost. Of course I meant this only for the SGA, but ultimately it depends on the people applying in and from what I understand now, *I* won't be touching any headers :). thanks for all these explanations, Pedro.
Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)
On 10/14/2011 8:58 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: --- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: ... A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with header changes in the history. Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's therefore essential to know why a header was changed and by whom. And of course the branch would be on SVN so the history for the legal changes wouldn't be lost. Of course I meant this only for the SGA, but ultimately it depends on the people applying in and from what I understand now, *I* won't be touching any headers :). thanks for all these explanations, Pedro. Robert Pedro, I intend to get started on the headers in the very near future. My intention is to do a series of checkins by project/directory in the source tree, matching the changes to the grant(s). I have a bit of sequencing of activities before I start, but this is next up on the list. Andrew -- Oracle Email Signature Logo Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect Oracle Corporate Architecture Group Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi; Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes, and given that it requires manual intervention and is not something that can be done in one huge mega commit ... I think we should create a branch for this changes in merge them in two steps: corresponding to both SGAs. This way merging CWSs and bugzilla patches can go on without pain and people can get started on the header changes. I recommend separating review from (automated) execution. If this is done, a branch shouldn't be necessary... Robert
Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)
--- On Thu, 10/13/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: I recommend separating review from (automated) execution. If this is done, a branch shouldn't be necessary... Uhm.. can you elaborate a bit more? A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with header changes in the history. regards, Pedro.
