Project status

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Project status

Ralph Goers
The Logging PMC has been discussing merging all the mailing lists into a single dev list and a single user’s list.  As such, this is probably a good time to discuss where log4cxx is headed.

It seems to me the experiment that to reboot log4cxx has not succeeded. As such I think the proper course of action is to move the project out of the incubator and back under the logging services umbrella. I would suggest that the svn repo be converted to git so that the current committers can retain their commit privileges.  The project would then essentially be in a state similar to log4php where it is simply reported as inactive but people can work on it if they choose to.

Ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Ralph Goers
In SVN each subproject exists under the whole logging umbrella. Any committer to the logging project can commit to any logging subproject. With git, since each project is a separate repo it is possible to restrict who can commit to what if that is desired. The ASF has its own git that is mirrored to github.

Yes, Jira could be used. The project wouldn’t close down. It would just be dormant until someone decides they want to do some work.

Ralph



> On Mar 1, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
> am Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 um 18:01 schrieben Sie:
>
>> It seems to me the experiment that to reboot log4cxx has not
>> succeeded.
>
> Sad but true.
>
>> I would suggest that the svn repo be converted to git so
>> that the current committers can retain their commit privileges.
>
> I don't think I understand this: Who does what to the SVN repo and
> needs to host it where using GIT? :-) Are you talking about the Apache
> GIT mirror on GitHub?
>
>> The
>> project would then essentially be in a state similar to log4php
>> where it is simply reported as inactive but people can work on it if
>> they choose to.
>
> Sounds good to me. Does this mean that JIRA could still be used as
> well? It seems in use for log4php, as new bugs have been created this
> year.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Thorsten Schöning
>
> --
> Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>
> Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
> Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>
> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Roland-59
Hi.

I think Ralph means that, currently with  SVN access, committers can change any project under http://logging.apache.org/ .

With GIT, user permissions are based on specific project. For example log4j and log4cxx have different permissions.

When migrating to GIT, the commit history is retained, there is no point keeping the old SVN repository. So GIT repository would become the master.

Regards,
Roland

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 13:18 Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Mittwoch, 1. März 2017 um 22:18 schrieben Sie:

> With git, since each project is a separate repo it is
> possible to restrict who can commit to what if that is desired.

So current committers to incubating log4cxx are no committers for the
umbrella logging project and they shouldn't/can't simply become one
because incubation failed?

In the end, what do I need to do? Keeping commit permissions is
preferred of course, so if we need to move to GIT therefore, let's do
it.

After log4cxx migrated to GIT, is there still something left in the
SVN repo? And which of both is the "master" then? I'm asking because
currently I e.g. use svn:externals in my own SVN repo to include
incubation log4cxx. Depending on how the project is moved to GIT, I
and others need to change things.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Ralph Goers
Now that the incubator vote has passed we can formally begin the process of moving the project back to Logging Services. Frankly, there isn’t much to do.  This list is going to be merged into [hidden email] along with all the other sub-projects while the users list remains dedicated to log4cxx. The web site is already under logging.apache.org

As far as I can see the only thing that needs to be done is to move the source code.  It is up to this community to decide whether to stay with svn or move to git.  My personal experience is that you will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in pull requests. At least, that is my experience with Log4j.

Thoughts?

Ralph

On Mar 2, 2017, at 5:41 AM, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:

Guten Tag Roland Uuesoo,
am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 um 13:06 schrieben Sie:

When migrating to GIT, the commit history is retained, there is no
point keeping the old SVN repository.

Of course there might be a point, e.g. for people using svn:externals
to integrate log4cxx into their project. This is a quite common setup
and would keep working if the old code base would be kept e.g.
read-only or would be mirrored or whatever.

On the other hand, the Apache GIT-repos are mirrored to GitHub and
GitHub provides a SVN bridge. So one could really delete the sources
from the SVN and people seeing things failing could be advised to use
the GitHub SVN-bridge instead. I'm doing that already for e.g. Apache
Wicket and it somewhat works, currently even better than some months
ago, where I often faced timeouts I didn't face with "native" GitHub
repos and their SVN-bridge.

That's why Im asking, one simply needs to know/decide. I could
perfectly live with the second approach.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
Subversion repos are mirrored on GitHub as well; it's just more work involved merging pull requests via svn unless you're already using git-svn locally (at which point I ask, why even use svn in the first place?)

On 16 March 2017 at 21:56, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Now that the incubator vote has passed we can formally begin the process of moving the project back to Logging Services. Frankly, there isn’t much to do.  This list is going to be merged into [hidden email] along with all the other sub-projects while the users list remains dedicated to log4cxx. The web site is already under logging.apache.org

As far as I can see the only thing that needs to be done is to move the source code.  It is up to this community to decide whether to stay with svn or move to git.  My personal experience is that you will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in pull requests. At least, that is my experience with Log4j.

Thoughts?

Ralph

On Mar 2, 2017, at 5:41 AM, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:

Guten Tag Roland Uuesoo,
am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017 um 13:06 schrieben Sie:

When migrating to GIT, the commit history is retained, there is no
point keeping the old SVN repository.

Of course there might be a point, e.g. for people using svn:externals
to integrate log4cxx into their project. This is a quite common setup
and would keep working if the old code base would be kept e.g.
read-only or would be mirrored or whatever.

On the other hand, the Apache GIT-repos are mirrored to GitHub and
GitHub provides a SVN bridge. So one could really delete the sources
from the SVN and people seeing things failing could be advised to use
the GitHub SVN-bridge instead. I'm doing that already for e.g. Apache
Wicket and it somewhat works, currently even better than some months
ago, where I often faced timeouts I didn't face with "native" GitHub
repos and their SVN-bridge.

That's why Im asking, one simply needs to know/decide. I could
perfectly live with the second approach.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow






--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
We actually have to manually migrate to git nowadays. Infra provides help if necessary, but we can create a new repo via a form, then use git-svn to import the svn repo, then set the remote to the new git repo and push it. Then we can archive the old svn repo. I've been working on doing the same thing with some Apache Commons repos lately.

On 17 March 2017 at 04:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 03:56 schrieben Sie:

> My personal experience is that you
> will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to
> really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in
> pull requests.

I totally agree and Robert Middleton already used GitHub to port to
smart pointers. GitHub provides a SVN bridge as well, which works for
their own and Apache mirrored projects, I'm using both in my
environment with e.g. Apache Wicket. So whoever is using svn:externals
only needs to change the URLs and keeps read-only access like before.

So please move us to git:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/log4cxx

The web site stays in SVN like the others at that place, correct?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/logging/content/log4cxx

Anything I need to do or are you creating the issue for infra?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
With that in mind, I can help migrate the repos this weekend.

On 17 March 2017 at 09:08, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
We actually have to manually migrate to git nowadays. Infra provides help if necessary, but we can create a new repo via a form, then use git-svn to import the svn repo, then set the remote to the new git repo and push it. Then we can archive the old svn repo. I've been working on doing the same thing with some Apache Commons repos lately.

On 17 March 2017 at 04:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 03:56 schrieben Sie:

> My personal experience is that you
> will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to
> really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in
> pull requests.

I totally agree and Robert Middleton already used GitHub to port to
smart pointers. GitHub provides a SVN bridge as well, which works for
their own and Apache mirrored projects, I'm using both in my
environment with e.g. Apache Wicket. So whoever is using svn:externals
only needs to change the URLs and keeps read-only access like before.

So please move us to git:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/log4cxx

The web site stays in SVN like the others at that place, correct?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/logging/content/log4cxx

Anything I need to do or are you creating the issue for infra?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Ralph Goers
Thanks Matt. If you know how to do this I would very much appreciate that.

Ralph


On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

With that in mind, I can help migrate the repos this weekend.

On 17 March 2017 at 09:08, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
We actually have to manually migrate to git nowadays. Infra provides help if necessary, but we can create a new repo via a form, then use git-svn to import the svn repo, then set the remote to the new git repo and push it. Then we can archive the old svn repo. I've been working on doing the same thing with some Apache Commons repos lately.

On 17 March 2017 at 04:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 03:56 schrieben Sie:

> My personal experience is that you
> will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to
> really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in
> pull requests.

I totally agree and Robert Middleton already used GitHub to port to
smart pointers. GitHub provides a SVN bridge as well, which works for
their own and Apache mirrored projects, I'm using both in my
environment with e.g. Apache Wicket. So whoever is using svn:externals
only needs to change the URLs and keeps read-only access like before.

So please move us to git:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/log4cxx

The web site stays in SVN like the others at that place, correct?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/logging/content/log4cxx

Anything I need to do or are you creating the issue for infra?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
Since I'm a PMC here, I shouldn't have any issues in the process. I'll post back on the lists if I need karma to do anything.

On 17 March 2017 at 10:24, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Matt. If you know how to do this I would very much appreciate that.

Ralph


On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

With that in mind, I can help migrate the repos this weekend.

On 17 March 2017 at 09:08, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
We actually have to manually migrate to git nowadays. Infra provides help if necessary, but we can create a new repo via a form, then use git-svn to import the svn repo, then set the remote to the new git repo and push it. Then we can archive the old svn repo. I've been working on doing the same thing with some Apache Commons repos lately.

On 17 March 2017 at 04:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 03:56 schrieben Sie:

> My personal experience is that you
> will get more contributions if you move to git. People seem to
> really like being able to fork the project on GitHub and send in
> pull requests.

I totally agree and Robert Middleton already used GitHub to port to
smart pointers. GitHub provides a SVN bridge as well, which works for
their own and Apache mirrored projects, I'm using both in my
environment with e.g. Apache Wicket. So whoever is using svn:externals
only needs to change the URLs and keeps read-only access like before.

So please move us to git:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/log4cxx

The web site stays in SVN like the others at that place, correct?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/logging/content/log4cxx

Anything I need to do or are you creating the issue for infra?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
Let me overview the different flows:

When you're using Subversion as the master read/write repository, that gets mirrored in git.apache.org, which then gets mirrored to GitHub. To apply a PR from GitHub, you'd generally download it as a patch, apply that patch locally, then svn commit it. There's alternatives available here, but I won't go into them as they're pointless to discuss at the moment. In order to mark a PR as merged, you have to manually say something like "This closes #42" in a commit message. GitHub picks up that commit message and automatically closes whatever #42 is (issue or PR).

When you're using Git as your master repository, that is mirrored to git.apache.org as a read-only copy I believe (hence the git-wip-us URL) which uses the git:// protocol instead of https (which is the git-wip-us version). Again, that gets mirrored to GitHub. For merging PRs, you can also generate a patch file and apply it with "git apply" to preserve author info. You can also add GitHub as an additional remote in your own git clone so that you can pull directly from github, merge, then push directly to git-wip-us. GitHub will see the merge commit and will automatically close the PR. Otherwise, same as above: you can manually mark a PR as closed with the commit message thing.

The main advantage of using git-wip-us instead of svn is that you're using only git. If a development team is more comfortable using svn, then stick with svn. Just note that there's a little bit more manual work in accepting PRs from GitHub when you use svn since it's basically the same thing as applying patch files uploaded to jira.

On 17 March 2017 at 11:45, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Matt Sicker,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 16:25 schrieben Sie:

> Since I'm a PMC here, I shouldn't have any issues in the process.
> I'll post back on the lists if I need karma to do anything.

Sorry, but seems I might be too fast by asking for a migration and I
have some questions now:

What is the actual benefit for others(!) willing to contribute if we
move to GIT now?

The project would very much like to be available on GitHub to let
people clone the repo, asking for pull requests and such. And it would
be great to be able to merge those pull requests as easy as possible
of course.

I thought this is only possible by moving to GIT, but actually that
doesn't seem to be the case? I've found the following:

> log4cxx.git     Apache log4cxx  git://git.apache.org/log4cxx.git        View on GitHub

http://git.apache.org
https://github.com/apache/log4cxx
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4cxx/

Which claims to be a read-only mirror of the SVN repos, which would
not provide easy merging of GitHub pull requests I guess? But if I
look at the following project, I get confused:

> We do not merge pull requests directly on Github, all PRs will be
> pulled and pushed through https://git.apache.org/.

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mynewt-core

> asfgit  merged 4 commits into apache:develop from mkiiskila:fix-ctrl-c-win2 7 days ago

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mynewt-core/pull/203

That project is available as
> git://git.apache.org/incubator-mynewt-core.git
and
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-mynewt-core.git;a=summary

This looks like they are working with GIT internally and provide that
repo as a mirror using the read-only mirror to GitHub as well? Getting
pull requests there, downloading those somehow, pushing to their
internal repo and the asfgit-bot merges those commits back to GitHub?
But which is their internal repo they push the PRs to, git.apache.org
or git-wip-us.apache.org? I would have expected the latter.

I'm just asking because it might simply be less work to move the SVN
repo back into it's old structure, which already is available in the
GIT-mirror and somehow get the clone at GitHub updated as well.

I just don't know how one would deal with the pull requests on GitHub
then. One obviously couldn't commit those using SVN directly, but if
it's possible using GIT tools and git.apache.org, wouldn't that be
sufficient already? The docs regarding the svn-bridge at Apache are
not clear to me as well:

https://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache

git.apache.org is used in the example for comitters, svn.apache.org
instead a bit higher on that page.

In the docs, I don't see what's the actual difference/benefit of
git-wip-us, besides being native GIT, e.g. compared to the
git-svn-bridge of Apache for people who want to use GIT clients
instead of SVN ones. I guess the native GIT thing IS the only
difference?

http://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git
https://git-wip-us.apache.org
https://reporeq.apache.org
https://reference.apache.org/pmc/github

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
I haven't figured that part out yet (we're working on doing that in commons-pool right now), but there's a setting somewhere that determines what gets mirrored to GitHub. When we switch over to git, we'll update that settings so that the git mirror is updated. Unfortunately, I don't think the history will have the same commit ids, so the PRs won't be valid anymore. They'll have to rebase on the new history.

On 17 March 2017 at 13:28, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Matt Sicker,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie:

> You can also add
> GitHub as an additional remote in your own git clone so that you can
> pull directly from github, merge, then push directly to git-wip-us.
> GitHub will see the merge commit and will automatically close the
> PR.

Thanks a lot for your explanation, Matt. That's basically something
like the following, especially beginning with step 5, correct?

https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/#modifying-an-inactive-pull-request-locally

That sounds a bit easier than passing patch files around like for SVN
and I'm already using an upstream-setup for some GitHub-forked repos
already. So with log4cxx, Apache would simply be default/upstream,
GitHub a remote downstream set up like upstream in other cases and
everything else should be what I'm already doing sometimes...

https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-a-remote-for-a-fork/

That sounds preferable over sticking with SVN.

Do you see any problems with the names, because the log4cxx-GIT-mirror
already exists and there's a repo in GitHub already? That repo has PRs
attached already, would be cool if it could simply be updated to
current SVN-repo status.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Matt Sicker
Well, after the migration, I bet the PRs will have super merge conflicts unless they do a full rebase. I don't know how that'd work, either. It'd probably be easier for the individuals to create a diff, check out the new history, then apply that diff, commit, and force push over their old PR.

On 17 March 2017 at 14:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Guten Tag Matt Sicker,
am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 19:36 schrieben Sie:

> Unfortunately, I don't think the history will have the same commit
> ids, so the PRs won't be valid anymore. They'll have to rebase on the new history.

But things might not be lost at all and one could send them a message
to do so in the PR etc. Would be cool if and else the world keeps
turning for sure as well... :-)

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow




--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Project status

Robert Middleton
The current PRs on the log4cxx github are most likely invalid at this
point.  Going by the commit dates of 2003(as well as looking at the
license), the version that is on there does appear to be from that
time period, and thus the pull requests are so old that the issues
that they refer to have probably been fixed long ago.

-Robert Middleton

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, after the migration, I bet the PRs will have super merge conflicts
> unless they do a full rebase. I don't know how that'd work, either. It'd
> probably be easier for the individuals to create a diff, check out the new
> history, then apply that diff, commit, and force push over their old PR.
>
> On 17 March 2017 at 14:00, Thorsten Schöning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Guten Tag Matt Sicker,
>> am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 19:36 schrieben Sie:
>>
>> > Unfortunately, I don't think the history will have the same commit
>> > ids, so the PRs won't be valid anymore. They'll have to rebase on the
>> > new history.
>>
>> But things might not be lost at all and one could send them a message
>> to do so in the PR etc. Would be cool if and else the world keeps
>> turning for sure as well... :-)
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>
>> Thorsten Schöning
>>
>> --
>> Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail: [hidden email]
>> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>>
>> Telefon...........05151-  9468- 55
>> Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
>> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>>
>> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
>> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Loading...