History

[rtomayko]

It'd be cool to retain the original history when extracting libraries like this. Would you guys mind if I push a branch with the full history from the github/github repo? We'd need to rebase everything that's happened here on top and force push unfortunately. Sorry, I would have chimed in here earlier but had no idea this was going on.

[rsanheim]

+1 we have a lot of weird edge casey things captured in commits...should really maintain history.

[rtomayko]

Alright, I pushed a history branch with the original history plus all changes that have been made so far here on top. It's identical to master with one exception: all of the unit tests from the main app are under test/unit/html/*. Those won't work but we should make sure we're porting them over.

I can't send a pull request for this because the branches have entirely differently histories. We'll need to push -f over master.

[rtomayko]

Also, we really need to get this project dumping status in The .com Room or somewhere. I had no idea any of this was going on. I actually started extracting this a couple months ago and think I have another repo hanging around. The plan was to name it html-pipeline.

I also really don't like releasing stuff under the github account. This should really have a maintainer and the main fork should be under their account.

[rtomayko]

Setup the campfire hooks so stuff is flowing in The .com Room now.

[rtomayko]

Anyone watching this repo at all? I'd like to get this figured out so we don't have to cherry pick changes onto both branches.

/cc @jch, @shayfrendt

[jbarnette]

I'm watching this, but you already knew that.

[wfarr]

I watch the watchers.

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM, John Barnette wrote:

I'm watching this, but you already knew that.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (https://github.com/github/github-html/issues/3#issuecomment-8143753).

[rsanheim]

I'm watching this. Did you already do the force push? I wasn't sure where this was at cuz there is no pull request.

I'm like a child who wandered into the middle of a movie.

[rtomayko]

There's a branch called history that needs to be pushed -f over master but I don't want to fuck up anyone's existing work there. Trying to track down @jch. He may just be out this week or something.

[jch]

Yup, I'm in china visiting relatives. There's still a lot more cleanup I
wanted to do with this gem before moving .com and other projects onto it.
Namely, the tests haven't been moved over, and the language detection stuff
fails to work with heroku. I plan to do more with this when I'm back in a
week, but feel free to -f it. I can catch up again later.

On Friday, August 31, 2012, Ryan Tomayko wrote:

There's a branch called history that needs to be pushed -f over master
but I don't want to fuck up anyone's existing work there. Trying to track
down @jch https://github.com/jch. He may just be out this week or
something.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/github/github-html/issues/3#issuecomment-8175317.

-Jerry
@whatcodecraves http://twitter.com/whatcodecraves
github http://github.com/jch

[rtomayko]

@jch Ahh awesome! Sorry to bother you on vacation. Have a great time! We'll deal with this when you get back.

[rsanheim]

bump bump

[jch]

Wrapping up a search feature for enterprise. @rtomayko how did you rebase to remove all the other code while still maintaining history for the original code? I'm not sure what to google for here.

[aroben]

git filter-branch is one way.

[rtomayko]

I wrote up the approach I use for extracting subtree histories into new projects here:

https://gist.github.com/1c4045ff6027dfac1859

@jch This is already done and on the history branch though. We just need to force push over master. The HEAD trees are identical on both branches with the exception of the unit tests that were brought over from github/github.

I didn't want to force push before everyone knew what was going on because it's so easy to accidentally merge and push the old history. Any branches based on the current master branch will need to be cherry picked onto the new branch head.

[rtomayko]

Also, it's worth mentioning that we should be a bit more stringent with process here. Once a project is extracted like this we really need to make sure we integrate it back into the project it was extracted from. i.e., This project shouldn't be used or enhanced until it lands in github/github as a normal gem. Otherwise we're going to have two diverging codebases and moving commits between them will be a huge pain.

[jch]

The only hangup I have about pushing this to master is that we're already
using it in enterprise-web. charlock-holmes doesn't work on heroku and
e-web is deployed there. I could rename my master as a branch and freeze
enterprise on that branch, but I'd rather fix it properly for both. Do you
guys think it'd be better to force push now so it doesn't diverge further,
or to fix it before a force push?

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Ryan Tomayko notifications@github.comwrote:

Also, it's worth mentioning that we should be a bit more stringent with
process here. Once a project is extracted like this we really need to make
sure we integrate it back into the project it was extracted from. i.e.,
This project shouldn't be used or enhanced until it lands in github/github
as a normal gem. Otherwise we're going to have two diverging codebases and
moving commits between them will be a huge pain.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/github/github-html/issues/3#issuecomment-8616708.

-Jerry
@whatcodecraves http://twitter.com/whatcodecraves
github http://github.com/jch

[rtomayko]

Hmm. I thought the two trees were identical. If there's any differences hold off and i'll get that straightened out. They should be the same though. Only diff with the history branch should be those unit tests.

[jch]

hrrrmmmm, I'll double check how it's being used in enterprise-web, if it
works fine, then I'll force push it.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Ryan Tomayko notifications@github.comwrote:

Hmm. I thought the two trees were identical. If there's any differences
hold off and i'll get that straightened out. They should be the same
though. Only diff with the history branch should be those unit tests.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/github/github-html/issues/3#issuecomment-8637569.

-Jerry
@whatcodecraves http://twitter.com/whatcodecraves
github http://github.com/jch

[jch]

@rtomayko looked good to me, I force pushed history to master. Do you have a .com branch in progress for pointing to github-html? I'll update the enterprise projects.

[rtomayko]

I don't have a branch going in github/github but I'm very interested in doing that. I guess my point was that, in the future, we shouldn't extract components until we're committed to both extracting the component and integrating it back into the main product as part of the same project. No biggie. We'll get to it when we can.

[rtomayko]

I think we should also talk about OSS'ing this. One of the things I'm kind of opinionated about is OSS'ing stuff under the github account. I really think projects should have a very obvious human maintainer and things like this should be released under a normal user account, not under the github account.

Not everything falls in this category. Linguist and github-services are great under the github account because they're github specific. Generic components like this, though, should be owned by a real person.

If OSS'ing and maintaining this library is something anyone here wants to take on, I think that'd be great. I'm happy to own it if no one else is interested. These project can be a great bump to your github profile though. I highly recommend thinking about what generic components can be extracted from github.com and taking them on as OSS projects under your personal account.

/cc @github/dotcom

[jch]

I definitely agree with your point about extracting and integrating it back
into the main product. I should've gotten more buy-in before I started this
(my bad!). I pulled it out because I was noticing that other apps were
starting to re-implement the same functionality (markdown, emoji) manually.
I'll keep it in mind for future extractions.

As far as OSS'ing it, I'd be happy to be maintainer since I've poked
through a lot of the codebase and have started some of the work with making
it work on heroku. But if any of the original authors would prefer to
maintain it, I obviously defer to them. See also #2 for a project rename
for oss.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Ryan Tomayko notifications@github.comwrote:

I think we should also talk about OSS'ing this. One of the things I'm kind
of opinionated about is OSS'ing stuff under the github account. I really
think projects should have a very obvious human maintainer and things like
this should be released under a normal user account, not under the
github account.

Not everything falls in this category. Linguist and github-services are
great under the github account because they're github specific. Generic
components like this, though, should be owned by a real person.

If OSS'ing and maintaining this library is something anyone here wants to
take on, I think that'd be great. I'm happy to own it if no one else is
interested. These project can be a great bump to your github profile
though. I highly recommend thinking about what generic components can be
extracted from github.com and taking them on as OSS projects under your
personal account.

/cc @github/dotcom

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/github/github-html/issues/3#issuecomment-8674729.

-Jerry
@whatcodecraves http://twitter.com/whatcodecraves
github http://github.com/jch

[technoweenie]

If OSS'ing and maintaining this library is something anyone here wants to
take on, I think that'd be great. I'm happy to own it if no one else is
interested. These project can be a great bump to your github profile
though. I highly recommend thinking about what generic components can be
extracted from github.com and taking them on as OSS projects under your
personal account.

Should we think about giving them a bad ass name? jch/github-html isn't as
cool as jch/html-motherfucker or something. Or you know, html-pipeline. I
pulled Model Iterator out so someone could use it, and it has no mention of
GitHub: https://github.com/technoweenie/model_iterator