Re: [DISCUSS] Retirement Policies related to GitHub/GitBox

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:35 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >...
>
>> For podlings that have an active GitHub through GitBox the implication of
>> this step is that the IPMC will now have control of the GitHub auth.
>>
>> (1) What needs to be done to the archive to make it clear that the
>> podling is retired? Shouldn’t the README.md be modified in a prior step?
>>
>> (2) Also, in some cases the retirement could mean the transfer of the
>> GitHub project elsewhere. Do we want to force a fork, or allow the
>> project’s GitHub to move elsewhere>
>>
>
> This is important *today* ... please see:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16698
>

I transferred the mirrors of our two Taverna git-wip repositories. But a
good question is: what to do with the old git-wip repos? Keep or toss? They
aren't "part of" the ASF any more.

Thoughts here, and/or on the ticket would be helpful.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [DISCUSS] Retirement Policies related to GitHub/GitBox

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 23:19:01 -0500, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:35 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >...
> >
> >> For podlings that have an active GitHub through GitBox the implication of
> >> this step is that the IPMC will now have control of the GitHub auth.
> >>
> >> (1) What needs to be done to the archive to make it clear that the
> >> podling is retired? Shouldn’t the README.md be modified in a prior step?
> >>
> >> (2) Also, in some cases the retirement could mean the transfer of the
> >> GitHub project elsewhere. Do we want to force a fork, or allow the
> >> project’s GitHub to move elsewhere>
> >>
> >
> > This is important *today* ... please see:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16698
> I transferred the mirrors of our two Taverna git-wip repositories. But a
> good question is: what to do with the old git-wip repos? Keep or toss? They
> aren't "part of" the ASF any more.

I think we agreed earlier on this particular case to permit a move
elsewhere GitHub-wise - but I am not sure if that should be a general
policy. A project should also be allowed to move to a different host
like GitLab.

I suggested in the issue for the git-wip repos, if we really want to
keep them around, then to do a "git rm *" and then add README.md that
says where they are moved to or why they are archived.

Then the code is still there in the git log at "use at own risk", since
it didn't graduate from the incubator, although the code was still
supposedly covered by the software grant to ASF and as ASF contributions
while in the incubator. And so that code "wants to stay open"

But "use at own risk" because it didn't graduate - in our case because
there were some unresolved IP issues. This should not be any different
than pre-incubator code being in the git log which may include code of a
different license.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org