On 2018-03-29, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote: > IMHO sbt fork happened because Ivy was not using Git then.
I don't understand. Either they have changed Ivy or could have used binaries. If they had to change Ivy the question is what did they have to change. > So my idea is to graft their branch onto Ivy repo whereupon EasyAnt-derived > clones can be mothballed. I don't really care where the fork came from. I'd prefer a situation where sbt didn't need to use a fork at all - or if they've got reasons to maintain a fork, then have them do that themselves. > What happens next is an open question, sbt maintainers could either fork > the original Ivy repo or become committers. For "fork the original repo" they can do so now without you or anybody else maintaining extra branches IMHO. You become a committer to Ivy be being involved in the Ivy community. > Are there some political issues that I did not notice? None that I was aware of. There might be legal issues as changes made by the sbt maintainers have not been contributed to Ivy explicitly and thus can not be simply copied into an Apache repo. But this is secondary IMHO. If there is a good reason to maintain the sbt fork inside of Ivy, then this can be solved. So far I don't see what the good reasons might be. I may just be slow, though. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
