incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Lambertus <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Unapproved Sharding Sphere releases
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:34:04 GMT


> On Feb 7, 2019, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> 
>> Larger discussion: Is there a reason for projects coming into incubation to have
the old repository moved (i.e. renamed) instead of being copied? I cannot think of a good
use case for moving versus copying. Seems like any project that had releases and a community
outside Apache would want to copy, not move.
> 
> If the project is moved then all of the thousands of forks and stars are still associated
with the original project. If copied then all of these will be associated with the now abandoned
repository and most of those will never come along with the moving project.
> 
> For the Chinese projects this can mean losing thousands of users and sometime contributors
to the project.
> 
> So, I am a MOVE and not COPY.
> 
> ShardingSphere has 6,633 stars and 2,363 forks plus 842 watches.
> 
>> 
>> Smaller discussion: Should the JIRA have been written to request copying/forking
the project? Or is this something that is supposed to be self-serve. I could not find a definitive
answer to this.
> 
> Ask Infra. ASICT they move by default.


We endeavor to perform move operations wherever technically possible for the exact reason
of retaining the stars and other metadata associated with the github project. It adds a few
extra steps for us, but the projects always appreciate having that data retained. If we did
a “copy” then there would be two extant repos which would cause no end of confusion, especially
for people with forks and watches on the original repo.

-Chris
ASF Infra



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message