Hmm this is interesting. The only reason this would cause me to think we should hold of is that we know that Hg -> Git does save the history.
What does everyone think? ~Michael On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Guys, > > don't want to spread to much confusion now.... but just heard of this > in another mail: > > [1] - > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201109.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > [2] - https://twitter.com/#!/davisp/status/117446331714383872 > > Seems like GIT is allowed - but have no proof for it > Mercurial is not GIT - but very GITish. Maybe this is an option for > you? If yes, you should ask at infra if that works or not. > > Cheers > Christian > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Michael MacFadden > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yuri, >> >> I wanted to coordinate with you on this. Is there a date/time that works >> well for you. I have a least one code review I owe you. Would you prefer >> to get the couple outstanding code reviews completed so you can get that >> code checked in before the move. >> >> Basically, we need to establish a mini code freeze. >> >> ~Michael >> >> On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Yuri Z wrote: >> >>> We postponed the move until 28-th Sep as by Michael's request. The Wiki >>> for PMC was updated accordingly on 13-th Sep. >>> BTW, @Michael, when are you planning to complete the move? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: >>> arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/ >>> branches/ >>> site/ >>> tags/ >>> trunk/ >>> arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/trunk >>> arc:~ douglasl$ >>> >>> ...? >>> >>> ~ >>> Doug. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Christian Grobmeier >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> +1 good to see some progress here! >>>> I am really looking forward to a first release :-) >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Michael MacFadden >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I think we have reached a consensus on the clean check in approach. We >>>> should be able to mention that we have decided on the approach in the >>>> report. Should we also set a target date for doing the migration? I am >>>> more than happy to do the migration. I think we should give ourselves 2 >>>> weeks to actually move the code over, just to be safe. This way we can >>>> discuss any organization or structural issues that may come up. >>>>> >>>>> If we have a method and a date, then I think we have a good plan to put >>>> in the board report. >>>>> >>>>> ~Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Upayavira wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:12 PM, "Jasper Horn" >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Upayavira wrote: >>>>>>>> Right, the source code is the project's most valuable possession. The >>>>>>>> ASF as a charitable organisation exists to produce software, therefore >>>>>>>> it must be in control of its main asset, the asset it exists to >>>> create! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Talk about "control", "possessions" and "assets" doesn't sound much >>>>>>> like Open Source to me... >>>>>> >>>>>> All software is owned (with the exception of public domain). Open source >>>>>> software makes strong use of copyright law, which is all about >>>>>> 'ownership'. Open source isn't about ownership, it is about licensing. >>>>>> Apache 'owns' the code (actually, owns the copyright on the collection, >>>>>> that is made up of individual parts which are owned by the respective >>>>>> authors), but then, in keeping with its non-profit mission, it makes >>>>>> that code available with a very liberal license to anyone who wants to >>>>>> use it. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a part of that, people have come to trust Apache software, and that >>>>>> needs some protecting - making sure that we keep to an approach that is >>>>>> worthy of that trust. So yes, Apache does protect its code. Apache does >>>>>> protect its trademarks. It is all Apache exists for. It protects its >>>>>> code and the methods used to create it so that it *can* make it >>>>>> available to the public, for no charge. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's scope to host code on git on Apache infrastructure, but that >>>>>>>> requires volunteers to assist with a deployment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would need to be done? >>>>>> >>>>>> You can join the [email protected] mailing list and ask there. I'm >>>>>> not so sure about all the details. But bear in mind that the kind of >>>>>> install that Apache needs is more substantial than most. It needs a >>>>>> workflow that effectively tracks code's origins (SVN does this well, >>>>>> with git, as I understand it, there are ways to work around this). But, >>>>>> to be honest, I'm not sure what the current road blocks are other than >>>>>> volunteer time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Upayavira >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de
