On 8/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all,
For some of our internal, non-open source work here at Oracle,
we're heavily depending on Trinidad (yay!). The catch is that,
at certain points, we need a stable branch to build off of and
apply only limited bug fixes so that internal work never gets
destabilized.
What I'd like to do is create branches in the Subversion repository
for Trinidad code, with the following commitments:
- No proprietary, non-Apache code will *ever* be checked in to
such branches.
- No work will happen on these branches that has not *first*
been checked into trunk, with the possible exception of deeply
hacky bug patches that wouldn't be wanted on a trunk.
In other words, this will still be public work, and never even
anything that could be construed as a fork in any way.
Does this seem reasonable? Is it legit by Apache rules?
All the alternatives I can think of are even less legit - e.g., we
could make an internal copy of the source code, but that just
reduces our exposure to the internal work and makes it less
straightforward for us to hew to the true code on the trunk.
I went back and asked what we (Sun) do with various artifacts we depend on
(such as bits from Tomcat). Back in CVS days (where a branch was pretty
expensive), we did some Sun-specific tags when we grabbed a snapshot, but
then we put that code in an internal mirror repository and did our builds
against that (plus any point fixes that were necessary).
In an Subversion world where branches like this would be really cheap, I
don't see a problem as long as the other committers are OK with it. But
hey, I work for a company that might like to be able to do this too :-). It
definitely seems like something worth asking on the Incubator general list
(so that it eventually ends up as guidance for new podlings) but perhaps
more broadly as well because it certainly matters for existing projects as
well.
I'll ping a couple of appropriate aliases so we can get broader feedback on
this.
-- Adam
Craig
