Re: Merging git history for jws-2020

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:25 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 7/19/22 11:31 AM, Orie Steele wrote:
> > issues can be transferred... I am fine transferring those.
>
> Can PR history be transferred? Can closed issues be transferred? 'cause
> that's
> part of the problem as well.
>

Yes, and in fact, its best preserved by my recommended approach.


>
> I'll note that we did not do this with the vc-data-model spec -- we
> migrated
> the repo. If you go looking for the VC Data Model spec in the CCG, you
> won't
> find it today (because we migrated -- didn't clone it -- from CCG to VCWG).
>

I'll note that this isn't the VCDM2 or VC-JWT or VC-DI.

We did exactly this process for the DID Spec registries, and it
successfully preserved history.


>
> > I'm offering to do the work.
>
> It's only partly about not doing extra unnecessary work.
>
> Even with volunteers, it continues to be a plan that splits history among
> two
> repos. The concerns are being ignored, which is that we don't want to
> unnecessarily duplicate stuff (and we want to preserve ALL history along
> with
> the repo -- not just some of it).
>
>
It is a better approach, it preserves history and doesn't break links or
create confusion.


> > AFAIK, Manu is not an editor for that work item currently (in either the
> > ccg or the vcwg). Its initial setup work (editorial). I can do it,
> preserve
> > history and then archive the CCG item properly so we don't break any
> links
> > or create any confusion.
>
> The preservation of history that impacts how we search through history for
> IP
> commitments is something that's above an Editor's pay grade... that is, the
> statements above are a deference to authority that the Editor's do not
> have on
> their own. The WG needs to decide, and ideally, do this in a uniform way
> that
> preserves the most history.
>
>
Agreed, which is why as an editor of both the ccg draft and the vc wg item,
I asked for permission from the group to do the work.

We don't need to handle every document the same way.

Manu, (speaking as a member of the WG), you are welcome to transfer these
repos to the wg:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/data-integrity-spec
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/di-ecdsa-secpr1-2019
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/lds-ed25519-2020

You could also transfer issues, update the readme to make it clear that the
work is now happening in the VC WG and NOT in the CCG, and provide some
friendly instructions for folks who want to contribute further, then
archive them, after linking to the new work location... As a member of the
working group, I would prefer you do the latter, but it's not a hill I
would die on.

I don't like transfering because it blurs the line between the W3C CCG and
the W3C, and I believe it's better to keep their histories and contexts
intact and related... it also keeps the credit in the W3C CCG for starting
the work, example:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-method-registry
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-use-cases

Regards,

OS




> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>