Community
Participate
Working Groups
Please start the process to migrate the code at https://github.com/digulla/org.eclipse.dash.m4e.tools to eclipse.org.
Wayne, did you see this bug?
Aaron, please extract the current version of the code from the repo and attach it to this bug. We'll use that as the initial contribution for this feature. At the time you attach it, can you indicate the names of the authors of the code and the percentage of the code (approximate) authored by each?
Created attachment 196605 [details] git bundle with the whole repo incl. history This is the whole code incl. all the history. All the code was written by myself. I didn't know whether I should set the flags "iplog" and "review", so I didn't touch them. Feel free to fix that as necessary. Please import this into a git repo on git.eclipse.org
The IP team can't review history. They can only review a snapshot in time. Unfortunately, this means that the history can't follow the code into the eclipse.org repo. Can you please attach a snapshot of the code.
(In reply to comment #4) > The IP team can't review history. I see ... in that case, I'd like to attach the very first commit. IP can clear that and after that, I can push my complete history to the new repo. Since all commits were made by me and I have commit rights, I hope that your lawyers can accept with that.
Created attachment 196633 [details] First commit in the history of the project
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > The IP team can't review history. > > I see ... in that case, I'd like to attach the very first commit. IP can clear > that and after that, I can push my complete history to the new repo. > > Since all commits were made by me and I have commit rights, I hope that your > lawyers can accept with that. Nope. It doesn't work that way. All of those contributions are subject to the terms of the Eclipse IP Policy and due diligence process. As a non-committer at the time, all of those commits would need to be taken through the due diligence process and be individually accounted for in the project's IP Log. Frustrating, eh? How many commits are we talking about here? It may be worth the effort to keep the history. FWIW, if it were that simple, I'd have suggested it.
(In reply to comment #7) > > Since all commits were made by me and I have commit rights, I hope that your > > lawyers can accept with that. > > Nope. It doesn't work that way. All of those contributions are subject to the > terms of the Eclipse IP Policy and due diligence process. As a non-committer at > the time, all of those commits would need to be taken through the due diligence > process and be individually accounted for in the project's IP Log. Frustrating, > eh? Yes, actually it is. Of course, I could simply throw away the history (I'd still have it at github) and it's not worth much but such things rub me the wrong way. People, who have no idea what I do or how to do what I do, tell me how to do my work. :-( > How many commits are we talking about here? It may be worth the effort to keep > the history. 61. Is it worth it? Not from an objective point of view. It "just" hurts my pride. Unfortunately, this is the precise coin which pays for OSS work. And it makes me weary how much such suffering the future will hold for me. Let me sleep over it.
Don't take it personally. No projects start with history. The EGit project went through the same deal; Shawn set up some kind of forwarding mechanism for people who really needed to see the history. In the grand scheme of things, I would love to be able to accept histories. Pragmatically-speaking however, the burden on the IP Team is generally just too great.
Sleeping usually helps to uncover the reasons for my uneasiness. How can something that consists of 99.9999% pre-committer code and just a single line of code that was written after I gained committer status be IP clean? If I was a trolling lawyer, I'd argue: 1. At some point in time X becomes a committer X'. 2. All the code before that point is "tainted" and the other party knows that (see this bug). This code was not allowed to be imported even if it was written by the very same X. 3. Any code added to the project by X' is of course clean. But in addition to this new code by X', all the old code by X was added to the project, too! Even though, according to #2, this code is tainted. How can that ever work? You already implicitly import the history by allowing the code in; only the comments for each change are lost. As I understand, even a single line of code from a tainted source taints the whole project. So the result of what you suggest must be tainted, too. Sorry to be a bother here but the "law" (or rather what well paid lawyers twisted it into) and I have a history. While it was a personal satisfaction that one of those lawyers was later arrested by Interpol for various crimes, I still lost a lot of my money in court because he laid his traps well.
Actually, we assume that there is no taint. The IP due diligence process exists to confirm this. Unfortunately, we have a pretty good (bad?) track record of finding issues in code. Fortunately, these issues get resolved before the code ends up in our repositories. Once the due diligence process is completed, we can stop assuming that there is no taint in the code, and start knowing. This is a little like "guilty until proven innocent," and I feel bad about that. For completeness, the IP Due Diligence process is primarily about proving the provenance of the code being contributed.
I have a better solution: Please create a new, empty repo. Since some people didn't like to touch Python, I'll convert the tool chain to Groovy. I'll use the new repo to build the new version from the ground up.
Git repository /gitroot/dash/org.eclipse.dash.m4e.tools.git has been created.
(In reply to comment #13) > Git repository /gitroot/dash/org.eclipse.dash.m4e.tools.git has been created. Thanks. The repo isn't listed on http://dev.eclipse.org/git/index_http.html Why is that?
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > Git repository /gitroot/dash/org.eclipse.dash.m4e.tools.git has been created. > > Thanks. The repo isn't listed on http://dev.eclipse.org/git/index_http.html > > Why is that? That page lists read-only Git mirrors of CVS repositories. The repo does show up on http://git.eclipse.org
Thanks, the new repo works and I've pushed my first commit. Maybe you'll want to have a quick look; I think that I've set up everything correctly (user name, committed ID) but maybe I missed something.
