You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commonsrdf.apache.org by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> on 2015/03/27 19:03:21 UTC
Fwd: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
OK, I think we have the green light to continue with the code ingestion
from the tag apache-import-20150327 at github:
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/releases/tag/apache-import-20150327
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:45:31 +0000
From: Craig L Russell <cl...@apache.org>
To: Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
CC: secretary@apache.org, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>,
private@commonsrdf.incubator.apache.org
Dear Sergio Fernández,
This message acknowledges receipt of the following document, which has
been filed in the Apache Software Foundation records:
Grant from Sergio Fernández for commons rdf
-- Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2015-04-01 2:02 GMT+02:00 Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>:
> Keeping both available for now, with the current three messages (URL,
> last commit, and the top of the README.md) on the
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository that indicate the project has been
> moved, is useful for a migration period.
>
> With Git it doesn't matter about the exact timescales for keeping
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf in sync with apache/incubator-commonsrdf, as
> merging is trivial and pushing is also trivial. Hence, if a fork uses
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf as a source, they will not be months out of
> date. At most they will be days out of date.
>
> FWIW, I don't mind being the one to push master to
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf for a while. It is one extra quick command
> that I have done in the past for other projects with similarly
> fragmented designs and with Git it really isn't a hassle.
>
> We could turn issues off, but there is a substantial chunk of the
> project history that is only available there, so it would be easier
> for everyones sake to leave them there.
>
> GitHub doesn't allow Pull Requests to be turned off, as that is not
> the point of their system. If we get Pull Requests there, we will
> merge them the same way we are currently merging Pull Requests, using
> "git merge --no-ff" on the command line. We can't use the GitHub
> interface to merge pull requests for apache/incubator-commonsrdf
> anyway, per the overall design where a push to git-wip triggers the
> update at GitHub, so in terms of where Pull Requests come in from,
> there is no difference.
>
> I suggest that we leave it how it is until graduation from the
> incubator, when we notify all of the remaining forks of
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf where the current repository is at that stage,
> as apache/incubator-commonsrdf isn't a permanent fixture anyway, so we
> would be reducing the administrative hassle for them from 2 (or more)
> fork changes to a single fork change.
>
> I doubt that we would be able to transfer a repository in and then
> have it converted to the special "mirror" repositories, and doing so
> doesn't help with merging pull requests anyway.
>
FWIW, we already have an empty repo [1] waiting for you after incubation.
Benedikt
[1] git://git.apache.org/commons-rdf.git
>
>
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 21:55, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm OK with the git rm +README approach on a non-master default branch
> > so that it appears at https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/ in
> > the browser.
> >
> > I am not too big fan of keeping
> > https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/master in sync with
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/tree/master - who will
> > be doing that? Can it be a cron-job somewhere?
> >
> > What happens if we get issues and pull requests on the
> > commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository? Should we turn those features off?
> >
> > There is a danger of turning the project structure upside down - we
> > just transferred commons-rdf to Apache and presumably now the project
> > is run within AFS, using these mailing lists etc - yet the old github
> > project keeps living on, appearing as a kind of "proper Commons-RDF"
> > project where commits to the incubator projects might trickle down
> > only when one of the (smaller set of) original committers updates it.
> >
> > The git rm approach on master might sound cruel to the forks - but
> > anyone doing 'git pull' should then notice the change and pick it up
> > again from the new location (and hopefully sign up to this mailing
> > list). It's not too hard hard to undo the result of this rm locally
> > with git.
> >
> >
> > Ideally I think we would have used the GitHub "Transfer" button in
> > GitHub to transfer it to Apache (this sets up redirects even at git
> > pull level) - but that might not work well with the git.apache.org
> > synchronization. I'll check with INFRA if that is something they want
> > to do -- what are your views- should we do that if possible? (That
> > should presumably then also be possible when we loose the "incubator-"
> > prefix)
> >
> > On 31 March 2015 at 10:39, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Fair point about existing forks esp as the Apache one is an unstable
> name
> >> because of incubator-* [1].
> >>
> >> Of the 10 forks , GH is tracking most are people who would understand
> the
> >> move.
> >>
> >> Shall we leave it as-is and aim to remove it when the project graduates?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 30/03/15 23:03, Peter Ansell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
> >>> reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
> >>> old-master-before-asf.
> >>>
> >>> I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
> >>> currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
> >>> very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
> >>> itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
> >>> branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
> >>> code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
> >>> branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
> >>> maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
> >>> Incubator.
> >>>
> >>> On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much
> as
> >>>> possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term
> it's
> >>>> clearer IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md
> with
> >>>>> the new location.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As the mirroring will go back again to
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern
> about
> >>>>> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now
> >>>>> three)
> >>>>> diverged master branches.
> >>>>> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
> >>>>>> solution
> >>>>>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master
> >>>>>> branch
> >>>>>> history is alive in our current repo).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to
> push
> >>>>>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if
> we
> >>>>>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion
> than
> >>>>>>> it is worth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
> >>>>>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what
> GitHub
> >>>>>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
> >>>>>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Peter
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Sergio,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct
> >>>>>>>>> folks
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove
> the
> >>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>> from the repo?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
> >>>>>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer
> to
> >>>>>>>> the ASF version.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
> >>>>>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the
> same
> >>>>>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still
> compatible
> >>>>>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
> >>>>>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once
> an
> >>>>>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Peter
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Sergio Fernández
> >>>>>> Partner Technology Manager
> >>>>>> Redlink GmbH
> >>>>>> m: +43 660 2747 925
> >>>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> >>>>>> w: http://redlink.co
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Keeping both available for now, with the current three messages (URL,
last commit, and the top of the README.md) on the
commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository that indicate the project has been
moved, is useful for a migration period.
With Git it doesn't matter about the exact timescales for keeping
commons-rdf/commons-rdf in sync with apache/incubator-commonsrdf, as
merging is trivial and pushing is also trivial. Hence, if a fork uses
commons-rdf/commons-rdf as a source, they will not be months out of
date. At most they will be days out of date.
FWIW, I don't mind being the one to push master to
commons-rdf/commons-rdf for a while. It is one extra quick command
that I have done in the past for other projects with similarly
fragmented designs and with Git it really isn't a hassle.
We could turn issues off, but there is a substantial chunk of the
project history that is only available there, so it would be easier
for everyones sake to leave them there.
GitHub doesn't allow Pull Requests to be turned off, as that is not
the point of their system. If we get Pull Requests there, we will
merge them the same way we are currently merging Pull Requests, using
"git merge --no-ff" on the command line. We can't use the GitHub
interface to merge pull requests for apache/incubator-commonsrdf
anyway, per the overall design where a push to git-wip triggers the
update at GitHub, so in terms of where Pull Requests come in from,
there is no difference.
I suggest that we leave it how it is until graduation from the
incubator, when we notify all of the remaining forks of
commons-rdf/commons-rdf where the current repository is at that stage,
as apache/incubator-commonsrdf isn't a permanent fixture anyway, so we
would be reducing the administrative hassle for them from 2 (or more)
fork changes to a single fork change.
I doubt that we would be able to transfer a repository in and then
have it converted to the special "mirror" repositories, and doing so
doesn't help with merging pull requests anyway.
On 31 March 2015 at 21:55, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm OK with the git rm +README approach on a non-master default branch
> so that it appears at https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/ in
> the browser.
>
> I am not too big fan of keeping
> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/master in sync with
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/tree/master - who will
> be doing that? Can it be a cron-job somewhere?
>
> What happens if we get issues and pull requests on the
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository? Should we turn those features off?
>
> There is a danger of turning the project structure upside down - we
> just transferred commons-rdf to Apache and presumably now the project
> is run within AFS, using these mailing lists etc - yet the old github
> project keeps living on, appearing as a kind of "proper Commons-RDF"
> project where commits to the incubator projects might trickle down
> only when one of the (smaller set of) original committers updates it.
>
> The git rm approach on master might sound cruel to the forks - but
> anyone doing 'git pull' should then notice the change and pick it up
> again from the new location (and hopefully sign up to this mailing
> list). It's not too hard hard to undo the result of this rm locally
> with git.
>
>
> Ideally I think we would have used the GitHub "Transfer" button in
> GitHub to transfer it to Apache (this sets up redirects even at git
> pull level) - but that might not work well with the git.apache.org
> synchronization. I'll check with INFRA if that is something they want
> to do -- what are your views- should we do that if possible? (That
> should presumably then also be possible when we loose the "incubator-"
> prefix)
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 10:39, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Fair point about existing forks esp as the Apache one is an unstable name
>> because of incubator-* [1].
>>
>> Of the 10 forks , GH is tracking most are people who would understand the
>> move.
>>
>> Shall we leave it as-is and aim to remove it when the project graduates?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30/03/15 23:03, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
>>> reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
>>> old-master-before-asf.
>>>
>>> I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
>>> currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
>>> very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
>>> itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
>>> branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
>>> code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
>>> branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
>>> maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
>>> Incubator.
>>>
>>> On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
>>>> possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
>>>> clearer IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
>>>>> the new location.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
>>>>>
>>>>> As the mirroring will go back again to
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
>>>>> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now
>>>>> three)
>>>>> diverged master branches.
>>>>> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
>>>>>> solution
>>>>>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>> history is alive in our current repo).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>>>>>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>>>>>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>>>>>>> it is worth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>>>>>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>>>>>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>>>>>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct
>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the
>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> from the repo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>>>>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>>>>>>> the ASF version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>>>>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>>>>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>>>>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>>>>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>>>>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sergio Fernández
>>>>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>>>>> Redlink GmbH
>>>>>> m: +43 660 2747 925
>>>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>>>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
I'm OK with the git rm +README approach on a non-master default branch
so that it appears at https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/ in
the browser.
I am not too big fan of keeping
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/master in sync with
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/tree/master - who will
be doing that? Can it be a cron-job somewhere?
What happens if we get issues and pull requests on the
commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository? Should we turn those features off?
There is a danger of turning the project structure upside down - we
just transferred commons-rdf to Apache and presumably now the project
is run within AFS, using these mailing lists etc - yet the old github
project keeps living on, appearing as a kind of "proper Commons-RDF"
project where commits to the incubator projects might trickle down
only when one of the (smaller set of) original committers updates it.
The git rm approach on master might sound cruel to the forks - but
anyone doing 'git pull' should then notice the change and pick it up
again from the new location (and hopefully sign up to this mailing
list). It's not too hard hard to undo the result of this rm locally
with git.
Ideally I think we would have used the GitHub "Transfer" button in
GitHub to transfer it to Apache (this sets up redirects even at git
pull level) - but that might not work well with the git.apache.org
synchronization. I'll check with INFRA if that is something they want
to do -- what are your views- should we do that if possible? (That
should presumably then also be possible when we loose the "incubator-"
prefix)
On 31 March 2015 at 10:39, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Fair point about existing forks esp as the Apache one is an unstable name
> because of incubator-* [1].
>
> Of the 10 forks , GH is tracking most are people who would understand the
> move.
>
> Shall we leave it as-is and aim to remove it when the project graduates?
>
> Andy
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/
>
>
>
>
> On 30/03/15 23:03, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>
>> There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
>> reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
>> old-master-before-asf.
>>
>> I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
>> currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
>> very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
>> itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
>> branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
>> code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
>> branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
>> maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
>> Incubator.
>>
>> On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
>>> possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
>>> clearer IMO.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
>>>> the new location.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
>>>>
>>>> As the mirroring will go back again to
>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
>>>> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now
>>>> three)
>>>> diverged master branches.
>>>> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
>>>>> solution
>>>>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely
>>>>> from
>>>>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master
>>>>> branch
>>>>> history is alive in our current repo).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>>>>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>>>>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>>>>>> it is worth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>>>>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>>>>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>>>>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct
>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> from the repo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>>>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>>>>>> the ASF version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>>>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>>>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>>>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>>>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>>>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sergio Fernández
>>>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>>>> Redlink GmbH
>>>>> m: +43 660 2747 925
>>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Fair point about existing forks esp as the Apache one is an unstable
name because of incubator-* [1].
Of the 10 forks , GH is tracking most are people who would understand
the move.
Shall we leave it as-is and aim to remove it when the project graduates?
Andy
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/
On 30/03/15 23:03, Peter Ansell wrote:
> There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
> reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
> old-master-before-asf.
>
> I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
> currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
> very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
> itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
> branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
> code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
> branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
> maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
> Incubator.
>
> On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
>> possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
>> clearer IMO.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>
>>> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
>>> the new location.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
>>>
>>> As the mirroring will go back again to
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
>>> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now three)
>>> diverged master branches.
>>> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
>>>> solution
>>>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely from
>>>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master branch
>>>> history is alive in our current repo).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>>>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>>>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>>>>> it is worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>>>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>>>>
>>>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>>>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>>>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> from the repo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>>>>> the ASF version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sergio Fernández
>>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>>> Redlink GmbH
>>>> m: +43 660 2747 925
>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
There are no divergent master branches at this point, as I did a hard
reset on that commit and moved it to another branch,
old-master-before-asf.
I would support a git rm on the GitHub visible branch (which is
currently "old-master-before-asf" but can be changed to something else
very easily) of commons-rdf/commons-rdf, but not on the master branch
itself. One of the advantages of Git is that we can mirror the master
branch there, without having casual browsing users able to see that
code, through the help of GitHub with its selection of the visible
branch. That enables us to continue support the existing forks, while
maintaining the public reference that we are currently in the Apache
Incubator.
On 30 March 2015 at 20:42, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
> possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
> clearer IMO.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
>> the new location.
>>
>> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
>>
>> As the mirroring will go back again to
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
>> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now three)
>> diverged master branches.
>> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
>>> solution
>>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely from
>>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master branch
>>> history is alive in our current repo).
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>>>> it is worth.
>>>>
>>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>>>
>>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>>>
>>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the
>>>>>> code
>>>>>> from the repo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>>>> the ASF version.
>>>>>
>>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Sergio Fernández
>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>> Redlink GmbH
>>> m: +43 660 2747 925
>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>
>>
>
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
I like the "git rm" approach - better to go round clearing up as much as
possible now. Short term it might be more confusing, but long term it's
clearer IMO.
Andy
On 30/03/15 08:42, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
> the new location.
>
> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
>
> As the mirroring will go back again to
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
> divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now three)
> diverged master branches.
> On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That solution
>> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely from
>> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master branch
>> history is alive in our current repo).
>>
>>
>> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>>> it is worth.
>>>
>>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>>
>>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>>
>>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
>>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
>>>>> from the repo?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>>> the ASF version.
>>>>
>>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sergio Fernández
>> Partner Technology Manager
>> Redlink GmbH
>> m: +43 660 2747 925
>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>> w: http://redlink.co
>>
>
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
For Taverna I just left a commit with git rm -r and a new README.md with
the new location.
https://github.com/taverna/taverna-scufl2
As the mirroring will go back again to
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf there is no concern about
divergent commits, it would just be confusing if there are two (now three)
diverged master branches.
On 30 Mar 2015 07:34, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That solution
> may work for a time. But we could think about removing it completely from
> github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and the master branch
> history is alive in our current repo).
>
>
> On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
>> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
>> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
>> it is worth.
>>
>> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>>
>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/
>> 911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>>
>> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
>> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>>
>> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
>> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>>
>>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
>>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
>>>> from the repo?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>>> the ASF version.
>>>
>>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 660 2747 925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Right, that commit will cause troubles with the mirroring... That
solution may work for a time. But we could think about removing it
completely from github (we have the bundle attached to COMMONSRDF-1 and
the master branch history is alive in our current repo).
On 30/03/15 02:12, Peter Ansell wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
> solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
> let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
> it is worth.
>
> A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
>
> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
>
> to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
> thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
>
> Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
> identical to the history in the ASF repository.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Sergio,
>>>
>>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
>>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
>>> from the repo?
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
>> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
>> the ASF version.
>>
>> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
>> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
>> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
>> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
>> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
>> initial transfer period is complete.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that Sergio had already created a commit to push
solely to GitHub. That will create two divergent Git histories if we
let it stay on the master branch, which will cause more confusion than
it is worth.
A workaround that I have just tried is to push Sergio's commit:
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/911e33aa9d7442464b3e9c6df1f8899a35d0fd44
to a separate branch, "old-master-before-asf" and changed what GitHub
thinks the master branch to be that one so it is displayed.
Then I reset the master branch to remove that commit so it is
identical to the history in the ASF repository.
Cheers,
Peter
On 30 March 2015 at 10:56, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Sergio,
>>
>> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
>> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
>> from the repo?
>>
>> John
>
> I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
> transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
> the ASF version.
>
> What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
> commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
> root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
> as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
> repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
> initial transfer period is complete.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
Re: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
On 30 March 2015 at 10:30, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sergio,
>
> Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
> the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
> from the repo?
>
> John
I have been mirroring the code there over the weekend to ease the
transfer period for others and I changed the description to refer to
the ASF version.
What advantage would there be to wiping the code in the
commons-rdf/commons-rdf repository, given that it contains the same
root Git history as the ASF repository and hence is still compatible
as a source for cloning at this point. Not sure how to make a
repository read-only on GitHub, but that could be an option once an
initial transfer period is complete.
Cheers,
Peter
Re: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Hi Sergio,
Are there plans to mark the github repo as read only and direct folks to
the ASF repos? I see a link was added, but any plans to remove the code
from the repo?
John
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> OK, I think we have the green light to continue with the code ingestion
> from the tag apache-import-20150327 at github:
>
> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/releases/tag/
> apache-import-20150327
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: CommonsRDF Software Grant Agreement
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:45:31 +0000
> From: Craig L Russell <cl...@apache.org>
> To: Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> CC: secretary@apache.org, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>,
> private@commonsrdf.incubator.apache.org
>
> Dear Sergio Fernández,
>
> This message acknowledges receipt of the following document, which has
> been filed in the Apache Software Foundation records:
>
> Grant from Sergio Fernández for commons rdf
>
> -- Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 660 2747 925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
>
>