On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Wade Chandler
wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:23, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> >
>
[snip]
> >> b.) the repo size is about 3.6 GiB. That’s really huge. Devs would not
> >> even be able to git-clone this over to their own
On Oct 7, 2016 8:39 AM, "Emilian Bold" wrote:
>
> > There is another thing also: the sentiment of belonging.
>
> This is a really good point Bruno.
>
> My point is that it's much simpler for contributors to join Apache. We
just
> use another mailing list, use another
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Mark Struberg
wrote:
> ...I agree with you that we should preserve the history though
Maybe create two repositories (or sets of): a historical one which
stays read-only and has all the history, and a current one starting
fresh from
> a.) the repo contains binaries which are GPL licensed. That needs to get
kicked out of the repo anyway.
Could you give an example for this? Like, a revision I can look at?
> b.) the repo size is about 3.6 GiB. That’s really huge. Devs would not
even be able to git-clone this over to their own
We had some good experience with using asciidoc.
That can be used as base for a web page but also get processed into a PDF or
help pages.
We only did this for much smaller projects so far though.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 07.10.2016 um 09:48 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga
>
Hi Emilian!
The problem with 2 is that it won’t work nicely.
There are 2 problems as sketched.
a.) the repo contains binaries which are GPL licensed. That needs to get kicked
out of the repo anyway.
> What is important is the legal clearance at
> the moment the code grant happens.
Yes, but
Yup. I think there needs to be a parallel solution like this.
Gj
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Emilian Bold
> wrote:
> > ...if we
> > only ask a lot of people will not notice this