6:33 a.m.
Hi Stefan, inline...
On 2016-05-02 18:00, Stefan Negrea wrote:
Hello Peter,
The type of problem that you raised is the exact reason why I proposed
another org. Why would you have a source dep on something that is no
longer maintained?
srcdeps on those now abandoned repos are there in the histories of our
components. It is the sustaining engineer speaking out of me, that it
should be possible to re-build any old commit of any git repo. It may
turn out to be necessary to build old commits in the future for whatever
reason (e.g. when using git bisect to find the commit that introduced
some bug). By changing the git repo URL, we break the builds of those
old commits. It is like removing artifacts from Maven Central.
Abandoned repos should be marked as such and that's all we should do.
Thanks,
-- P
That is really bad for the active project because the
raw unmaintained repository is included in something active. What if
there are issues with building the unmaintained code? Who will fix it?
Nobody should touch the archived repository!
The proper course of action for the scenario you described is to have
the active project drop the dependency on the archived project. And the
archived project should have had a release prior to being archived. The
active project should have depended on the officially released version
of the archived project and drop it as soon as possible.
If we set aside srcdep scenario, do you have any other objections to a
new org for archived repositories?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com
<mailto:ppalaga@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
I vote against the idea of archiving through moving to another GitHub
organization. This will break srcdeps builds, because the git repository
URL is one of the things the srcdep mech assumes to be stable.
Thanks,
Peter
On 2016-04-29 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
> that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a
good name
> for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org
focused on
> important projects and at the same time preserve work that was
already
> done but away from the main organization.
>
> From a quick look at the current organization here are two
repositories
> that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift
(Openshit 2.x
> cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus
(code
> moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other
repositories to
> move.
>
> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving
projects but
> for now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
>
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
> suggestions for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Stefan Negrea
>
> Software Engineer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev