You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@attic.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2021/03/30 10:32:22 UTC
Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
INFRA have started renaming Git repos when a PMC moves to the Attic.
They say this is because Attic asked for write access to the repos.
I don't think we need write access any more; in any case renaming the
Git repo breaks existing URLs.
I think the repos should be reverted to their original names to
restore the links.
Sebb.
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:51:28AM +0200, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> now that requiring write access means not only cumbersome efforts but also
> breaking Git repositories for end users (by renaming), yes, I'm confident we're
> sufficiently prepared to say that we don't need write access at all
>
After the DOAP file editing has gone away, it's been a couple of minor
things that's been edited in attic projects and there's been a recent
request from someone who wanted off the contributor list of a project.
Small stuff, that's probably not beyond reasonable asking infra to do
on the behalf of attic.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
yes, many improvements in the process were done in recent years to avoid
requiring write access (because this was the step in the process that was the
most time/energy consuming between Attic members and infra)
now that requiring write access means not only cumbersome efforts but also
breaking Git repositories for end users (by renaming), yes, I'm confident we're
sufficiently prepared to say that we don't need write access at all
regards,
Hervé
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021, 02:02:58 CEST sebb a écrit :
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:
> > > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No
> > > further code development will be done.
> > >
> > > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent
> > > experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the
> > > damage that is caused by the rename are compelling.>
> > I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small
> > text changes were committed by attic after the fact.
>
> Yes, we used to fix up the DOAP and RDF files, but we now use
> overrides which are much simpler.
> (and a long time ago we used to have to edit all the web pages to add
> the banner)
>
> > My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the
> > original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was
> > discussed very long ago so the details are hazy.
>
> Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
> by Attic people.
> I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
>
> This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
>
> Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
> happens anyway).
>
> Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
> ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
> For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
>
> I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt
> with.
> > vh
> >
> > Mads Toftum
> > --
> > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 07:16, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le vendredi 2 avril 2021, 02:11:24 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > > > Are we all agreed that:
> > > > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > > > repositories renamed
> > > > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as
> > > > per
> > > > [4])
> > >
> > > yes, agree
> > >
> > > > If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames
> > > > reverted.>
> > > making explicit GitBox vs GitHub can be useful
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by that.
> is seems frenglish is about a mindset in associating words :)
>
> I mean that we should not only talk about "Git" but more precisely how things
> are handled both on GitBox and GitHub, our 2 concrete Git server solutions,
> because both have different features that should be kept in sync.
Agreed. AFAIK that is supposed to happen, but there may be bug in the
tooling or a temporary fault that prevents proper synchronisation.
> I was really surprised that Falcon Git repository had a different name on
> GitBox vs GitHub: we need to check both systems.
I don't think it is our responsibility to check that the two systems agree.
We have no direct control over them so if they get out of step that
not something we can fix.
However if we do notice an issue, then of course we should report it.
I've reported the Falcon issue as a part of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21657
> >
> > > and sharing the idea: what if GitHub "archive" feature could have a GitBox
> > > counterpart?
> >
> > There is already an archive feature. Several of the Airflow repos are
> > marked as archived:
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf#airflow
> thanks for the pointer, I did not know
>
> >
> > Ideally the entire project block would be marked in some way, possibly
> > as well as marking all the repos.
> yes, I never look at the repositories index but at repositories directly, like
> everybody I suppose
>
>
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le vendredi 2 avril 2021, 02:11:24 CEST sebb a écrit :
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> > Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > > Are we all agreed that:
> > > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > > repositories renamed
> > > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as
> > > per
> > > [4])
> >
> > yes, agree
> >
> > > If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames
> > > reverted.>
> > making explicit GitBox vs GitHub can be useful
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.
is seems frenglish is about a mindset in associating words :)
I mean that we should not only talk about "Git" but more precisely how things
are handled both on GitBox and GitHub, our 2 concrete Git server solutions,
because both have different features that should be kept in sync.
I was really surprised that Falcon Git repository had a different name on
GitBox vs GitHub: we need to check both systems.
>
> > and sharing the idea: what if GitHub "archive" feature could have a GitBox
> > counterpart?
>
> There is already an archive feature. Several of the Airflow repos are
> marked as archived:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf#airflow
thanks for the pointer, I did not know
>
> Ideally the entire project block would be marked in some way, possibly
> as well as marking all the repos.
yes, I never look at the repositories index but at repositories directly, like
everybody I suppose
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > Are we all agreed that:
> > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > repositories renamed
> > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> > [4])
>
> yes, agree
>
> >
> > If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames reverted.
> making explicit GitBox vs GitHub can be useful
Not sure what you mean by that.
> and sharing the idea: what if GitHub "archive" feature could have a GitBox
> counterpart?
There is already an archive feature. Several of the Airflow repos are
marked as archived:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf#airflow
Ideally the entire project block would be marked in some way, possibly
as well as marking all the repos.
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
>
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> [4])
yes, agree
>
> If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames reverted.
making explicit GitBox vs GitHub can be useful
and sharing the idea: what if GitHub "archive" feature could have a GitBox
counterpart?
Regards,
Hervé
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 20:45:27 CEST Mads Toftum a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:21:20AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Are we all agreed that:
> > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > repositories renamed
> > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> > [4])
> Agreed? no.
> The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that projects
> under attic should be named accordingly. What other projects don't name
> their projects with the project name?
If we were creating these projects to maintain them alive, I would agree: yes,
when we'll move our Atttic site from svn to Git, its Git repository will be
attic-site.git, such will it be of anything we'll create to maintain the Attic
But our usual job is not about creating projects: we're given oversight on
pre-existing projects when they are retired, to put them in amber for
eternity.
If we can avoid to alter anything while putting retired projects in amber,
it's better, to let pre-existing community still find the retired project at
the same place it was in the past.
Regards,
Hervé
>
> vh
>
> Mads Toftum
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:21:20AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per [4])
>
Agreed? no.
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that projects
under attic should be named accordingly. What other projects don't name
their projects with the project name?
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebb,
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 3:21 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per [4])
>
> If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames reverted.
I agree.
Craig
>
> Thanks
>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> looking at Falcon retirement [1], which has a Git repo:
> - current Gitbox repo is attic-falcon.git [2]
> - but GitHub (where everybody is looking at) is still falcon.git [3]
Well spotted.
> And on GitHub, a clear sign of retirement for users exists, that has not been
> activated on this falcon.git: that is **archived** repositories, like [4]
Agreed.
> IMHO:
> 1. Renaming Gitbox repo (and only Gitbox) should not happen
> 2. Marking GitHub repository as archived should be done
> for past and future Attic moved projects Git repositories
Are we all agreed that:
- projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
repositories renamed
- repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per [4])
If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames reverted.
Thanks
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> [1] http://attic.apache.org/projects/falcon.html
>
> [2] https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/attic-falcon.git
>
> [3] https://github.com/apache/falcon
>
> [4] https://github.com/apache/tomcat55
>
> Le mercredi 31 mars 2021, 11:40:25 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:37, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > > Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
> > > > by Attic people.
> > > > I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
> > > >
> > > > This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
> > > >
> > > > Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
> > > > happens anyway).
> > > >
> > > > Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
> > > > ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
> > > > For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
> > > >
> > > > I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt
> > > > with.>
> > > Yeah, I suppose the main argument in favor of moving it would be to make
> > > it clear that you're looking at an attic codebase.
> >
> > The Attic only means something within the ASF.
> >
> > > I see the
> > > inconvenience of broken links, but on balance maybe it's better to have
> > > a clear signal that this is an unmaintained repo?
> >
> > There are other ways to signal that a repo is unmaintained.
> >
> > The attic- prefix in a repo name does not clearly indicate to the
> > general public that the repo is unmaintained.
> >
> > > vh
> > >
> > > Mads Toftum
> > > --
> > > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
>
>
>
>
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
looking at Falcon retirement [1], which has a Git repo:
- current Gitbox repo is attic-falcon.git [2]
- but GitHub (where everybody is looking at) is still falcon.git [3]
And on GitHub, a clear sign of retirement for users exists, that has not been
activated on this falcon.git: that is **archived** repositories, like [4]
IMHO:
1. Renaming Gitbox repo (and only Gitbox) should not happen
2. Marking GitHub repository as archived should be done
for past and future Attic moved projects Git repositories
Regards,
Hervé
[1] http://attic.apache.org/projects/falcon.html
[2] https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/attic-falcon.git
[3] https://github.com/apache/falcon
[4] https://github.com/apache/tomcat55
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021, 11:40:25 CEST sebb a écrit :
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:37, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
> > > by Attic people.
> > > I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
> > >
> > > This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
> > >
> > > Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
> > > happens anyway).
> > >
> > > Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
> > > ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
> > > For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
> > >
> > > I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt
> > > with.>
> > Yeah, I suppose the main argument in favor of moving it would be to make
> > it clear that you're looking at an attic codebase.
>
> The Attic only means something within the ASF.
>
> > I see the
> > inconvenience of broken links, but on balance maybe it's better to have
> > a clear signal that this is an unmaintained repo?
>
> There are other ways to signal that a repo is unmaintained.
>
> The attic- prefix in a repo name does not clearly indicate to the
> general public that the repo is unmaintained.
>
> > vh
> >
> > Mads Toftum
> > --
> > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:37, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
> > by Attic people.
> > I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
> >
> > This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
> >
> > Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
> > happens anyway).
> >
> > Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
> > ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
> > For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
> >
> > I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt with.
> >
> Yeah, I suppose the main argument in favor of moving it would be to make
> it clear that you're looking at an attic codebase.
The Attic only means something within the ASF.
> I see the
> inconvenience of broken links, but on balance maybe it's better to have
> a clear signal that this is an unmaintained repo?
There are other ways to signal that a repo is unmaintained.
The attic- prefix in a repo name does not clearly indicate to the
general public that the repo is unmaintained.
> vh
>
> Mads Toftum
> --
> http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
> by Attic people.
> I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
>
> This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
>
> Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
> happens anyway).
>
> Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
> ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
> For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
>
> I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt with.
>
Yeah, I suppose the main argument in favor of moving it would be to make
it clear that you're looking at an attic codebase. I see the
inconvenience of broken links, but on balance maybe it's better to have
a clear signal that this is an unmaintained repo?
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:
> > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further code development will be done.
> >
> > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage that is caused by the rename are compelling.
> >
> I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small
> text changes were committed by attic after the fact.
Yes, we used to fix up the DOAP and RDF files, but we now use
overrides which are much simpler.
(and a long time ago we used to have to edit all the web pages to add
the banner)
> My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the
> original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was
> discussed very long ago so the details are hazy.
Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access
by Attic people.
I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo.
This would allow Attic access and deny project access.
Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which
happens anyway).
Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better
ways to manage it than renaming the repo.
For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted.
I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt with.
> vh
>
> Mads Toftum
> --
> http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:
> I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further code development will be done.
>
> I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage that is caused by the rename are compelling.
>
I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small
text changes were committed by attic after the fact.
My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the
original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was
discussed very long ago so the details are hazy.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
Re: Renaming of Git repos when moving to Attic
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further code development will be done.
I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage that is caused by the rename are compelling.
Craig
> On Mar 30, 2021, at 3:32 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> INFRA have started renaming Git repos when a PMC moves to the Attic.
>
> They say this is because Attic asked for write access to the repos.
>
> I don't think we need write access any more; in any case renaming the
> Git repo breaks existing URLs.
>
> I think the repos should be reverted to their original names to
> restore the links.
>
> Sebb.
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org