How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

Hi;

Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
something that can be done in one huge mega commit ...

I think we should create a branch for this changes in merge
them in two steps: corresponding to both SGAs. This way
merging CWSs and bugzilla patches can go on without pain and
people can get started on the header changes.

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>]

On 10/14/2011 8:58 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> ...
>>> A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits
>>> with header changes in the history.
>> Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's
>> therefore essential to know why a header was changed and
>> by whom.
>>
> And of course the branch would be on SVN so the history for
> the legal changes wouldn't be lost. Of course I meant this
> only for the SGA, but ultimately it depends on the people
> applying in and from what I understand now, *I* won't be
> touching any headers :).
>
> thanks for all these explanations,
>
> Pedro.

Robert & Pedro,

I intend to get started on the headers in the very near future.
My intention is to do a series of checkins by project/directory in the 
source tree, matching the changes to the grant(s).
I have a bit of sequencing of activities before I start, but this is 
next up on the list.

Andrew

-- 


Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847

Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

--- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
...
> 
> > A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits
> > with header changes in the history.
> 
> Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's
> therefore essential to know why a header was changed and
> by whom.
>

And of course the branch would be on SVN so the history for
the legal changes wouldn't be lost. Of course I meant this
only for the SGA, but ultimately it depends on the people
applying in and from what I understand now, *I* won't be
touching any headers :).

thanks for all these explanations,

Pedro.

Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> I recommend separating review from (automated) execution.
>> If this is done, a branch shouldn't be necessary...
>>
>
> Uhm.. can you elaborate a bit more?

For projects of this scale, some level of automated help is typically needed.

> A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with
> header changes in the history.

Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's therefore
essential to know why a header was changed and by whom.

Robert

Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

--- On Thu, 10/13/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> I recommend separating review from (automated) execution.
> If this is done, a branch shouldn't be necessary...
> 

Uhm.. can you elaborate a bit more?

A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with
header changes in the history.

regards,

Pedro.
 

Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
> change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
> and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
> something that can be done in one huge mega commit ...
>
> I think we should create a branch for this changes in merge
> them in two steps: corresponding to both SGAs. This way
> merging CWSs and bugzilla patches can go on without pain and
> people can get started on the header changes.

I recommend separating review from (automated) execution. If this is
done, a branch shouldn't be necessary...

Robert