IMHO sbt fork happened because Ivy was not using Git then. GitHub shows clearly that the fork was created off Ivy repo clone created by EasyAnt (which is dormant now). So my idea is to graft their branch onto Ivy repo whereupon EasyAnt-derived clones can be mothballed. What happens next is an open question, sbt maintainers could either fork the original Ivy repo or become committers. Are there some political issues that I did not notice?
Gintas 2018-03-29 14:49 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>: > On 2018-03-25, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote: > > > I asked sbt developers [1] whether they would like to use the same Git > > repo. The consensus seems to be that sbt would like to have their own > > branch (or two). Would it be acceptable to graft sbt branch(es) to Ivy > repo? > > I'm not sure I understand the story. This is what seems to have > happened: > > * the sbt developers created a fork of Ivy 2.3 > > * either their changes looked to them unacceptable for Ivy, or they > didn't want to contribute their changes to the upstream or they just > didn't care. In either case they decided to maintain a long term fork > over asking the Ivy devs to change Ivy so they could use an unpatched > version. > > Why would the Ivy developers want to maintain this fork for sbt? > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > >
