Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Update README.md
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@jeremyletang
jeremyletang committed Apr 1, 2015
1 parent c0b11b0 commit ddcf5e3
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 0 deletions.
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions README.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
THIS REPOSITORY IS DEPRECATED SEE: https://github.com/rust-gnome
rgtk [![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/jeremyletang/rgtk.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/jeremyletang/rgtk) [![Gitter chat](https://badges.gitter.im/jeremyletang/rgtk.png)](https://gitter.im/jeremyletang/rgtk)
====

Expand Down

50 comments on commit ddcf5e3

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh wow, I hope this is not a joke ;)

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No no. Go on the link. I'm splitting the libs right now !

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm glad that it's happening but there's an issue with the license: simply swapping one license with another is problematic, I'd suggest getting consent of every contributor that has made nontrivial contributions under the LGPL to relicense their contributions under the new license. Strictly speaking, they did not allow distribution of their work under the new terms. If they don't consent, their commits probably need to be discarded.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The problem is that only a few will answer on that...

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For better or for worse, you can't sidestep this though. If someone hasn't expressly allowed distributing their 200 lines of code under MIT, no one can do it so the code needs to go away.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can just replace it, that's not a big deal but I understand the problem. I'd prefer they give us their agreement. Pfiou... I really find licences complicated...

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also I wonder if you've considered using some git magic to preserve the commit histories when splitting the repos. It should be doable, but dunno if you'll find it worthwhile.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We wanted to. We thought about asking github to move it to the organization. @jeremyletang finally decided to keep the old repo and create a new one.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure you need github's cooperation for that. If humanly possible I'd be strongly in favour of not losing data when reorganizing the repo structure.
I haven't done such splitting before but a little googling suggests it's possible: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/359424/detach-subdirectory-into-separate-git-repository/17864475#17864475

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll let @jeremyletang handle that. He will do it tomorrow, he doesn't have an internet access yet.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've deleted the comment with a bad recipe.
Here's what's worked based on this howto:

git mv glib-sys glib/
git commit
cd ..
git clone rgtk glib-split-poc
cd glib-split-poc
git filter-branch --prune-empty --subdirectory-filter glib master

@oakes
Copy link
Contributor

@oakes oakes commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy with any non-viral OSS license or public domain, so you have my permission. I agree that it would be good to preserve git history. Moving the repo would also preserve stars and automatically provide a redirect from this address, I believe. You just need to delete the rust-gnome/gtk project, then move this one to the rust-gnome organization, then rename it to gtk. I think that is possible.

@buster
Copy link

@buster buster commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@oakes @buster: Thanks to both of you ! I'll need to ask to remaining others (you didn't approved yet @gkoz ^^).

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree to the license change.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I sent an email for all other contributors. If you received it whereas you already gave your agreement, well, I'm sorry ! ^^'

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with re-licensing my contribution(s) under an MIT license.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey, I have a bad feeling about this discussion being in a comment to a commit. Should this formal stuff be handled in an issue of its own?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gkoz: oh ! You're totally right ! I thought it was an issue... I open a new one.

EDIT: Here it is !

@bpbp-boop
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I give permission for all my work on rgtk to be re-licensed under an MIT license.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bpbp-boop: You didn't have to give it twice, just once was enough. Thanks anyway ! (And thanks to you too @SimonSapin !)

@osa1
Copy link
Contributor

@osa1 osa1 commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with re-licensing.

@oakes
Copy link
Contributor

@oakes oakes commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I looked again, and it appears that rust-gnome/gtk does in fact have the full git history. However, this repo still exists. Wouldn't it be better to move/rename this repo so Github redirects automatically?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can't answer you exactly. @jeremyletang did that and I'm not sure you can move a repo from someone to an organization just like that. However, I didn't take a deeper look.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

rust-gnome/gtk does in fact have the full git history

Problem is the history for the cut off repos starts from scratch and even if it exists somewhere, it won't be accessible.

@oakes
Copy link
Contributor

@oakes oakes commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the repo settings, there is an option called "Transfer ownership" with this description: "Transfer this repo to another user or to an organization where you have admin rights."

I would highly recommend doing that to preserve everything.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We'll have to wait for @jeremyletang to do it, I don't have ownership on this. However it seems to be a good idea.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, the copyright issue has already been created on that repo so we can't just drop it now. But maybe github support could help.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We thought about asking github to transfer our repo directly. Don't remember why we changed our mind...

@frewsxcv
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I consent to the licensing transition

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @frewsxcv !

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I consent to the licensing transition

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @steveklabnik !

@gsingh93
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also agree to the license changes.

@oakes
Copy link
Contributor

@oakes oakes commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 3, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is @jeremyletang still offline? It's not too late to just move the repo. It would also allow forks like mine to continue pulling. It may not be hard to change the upstream repo setting, but I'm waiting to confirm whether we are moving this repo.

@oakes
Copy link
Contributor

@oakes oakes commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 3, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe your reasoning was that the new gnome-rust/gtk repo no longer contains glib and cairo, so redirecting this one to it would break existing projects?

@gekola
Copy link
Contributor

@gekola gekola commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I consent to the licensing transition.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@oakes: The goal of recreating a new repo was merely to not break existing projects which are using the actual rgtk.

@TobiasBales
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have no issues with the change either.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gekola, @TobiasBales: thanks !

@jeremyletang
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi guys, and sorry to not answer earlier,

Here is why I prefer to create a new repo instead of moving the existing one:

  • First i consider we start a new project from the existing one (not one library, but many different in the same organisation)
  • We change the licence, so we let the old code base with the old licence and make a new whole thing with a new licence
  • This don't break existing projects (even if we can count them on the finger of an hand).

Finally we can reimport all the git history as I made for rust-gnome/gtk so nothing is lost.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 7, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jeremyletang will you reimport relevant histories into other repos (glib, gdk, etc) too?

@jeremyletang
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gkoz yes we can.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 8, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't believe the history filtering has been done correctly but maybe we can live with that...

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gkoz: I said the same thing. We'll have to live with it ! I'm reporting your changes on splitted libraries.

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 8, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We'll have to rename the sys crates to drop the numbers for consistency I assume? But what is the plan for the crates.io? How would e.g. gtk crates be named exactly?

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 8, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or I guess, package and crate names don't have to be the same...

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What are you talking about exactly ?

@gkoz
Copy link
Contributor

@gkoz gkoz commented on ddcf5e3 Apr 8, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's gdk3-sys crate in the gdk repo and I assume it has to become gdk-sys because pointless. But the crates.io packages will probably not be named just gdk and gdk-sys, so I'm wondering what the plan is for their naming.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh ok, I see now. Yes, gdk3-sys is pointless. For now, I'm just focusing on finishing the libraries split. After we can discuss on the naming (I find it easier that way).

Please sign in to comment.