# What happened to pybombs git repository? **URL:** \ **Category:** GNU Radio\ **Created:** [August 24, 2013, 11:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-pybombs-git-repository/236309 "2013-08-24T11:31:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/addis_a)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 11:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-pybombs-git-repository/236309/1 "2013-08-24T11:31:44Z")
Greetings, Today I was trying to merge the last changes from pybombs/pybombs into my own copy in csete/pybombs. The merge kept failing as if there was a conflict in every single file. Looking at the pybombs repository there is indeed something strange. All history is missing and there is only one commit which in turn adds everything? I leave my own copy untouched for now in case you need a reference for restoring the repository. My own copy is up to date up until the last commit few days ago by Tom. [https://github.com/csete/pybombs](https://github.com/csete/pybombs) Alex ---
**Author:** ![copot](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@copot](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/copot)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-pybombs-git-repository/236309/2 "2013-08-24T21:26:22Z")
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Alexandru C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I leave my own copy untouched for now in case you need a reference for > restoring the repository. My own copy is up to date up until the last > commit few days ago by Tom. > [https://github.com/csete/pybombs](https://github.com/csete/pybombs) > > Alex Alex, This was done on purpose. When we changed the license, we decided to remove the pre-licensed code. I found what should have been the cleanest way to handle this, but I knew it was going to cause a force-update on anyone’s local branch when you pulled it down[1]. Any new clones will just get this one checkout. There’s no need to preserve the code in this case. The only real reason would be if people wanted to go in and add their copyright for code they’ve changed. We’re handling PyBOMBS differently than GNU Radio where we’re not assigning copyright to FSF. It’s GPLv3 and copyright is whoever made the copyrightable changes or additions to the code. I figured most of the patches submitted have largely been recipe-related (except some code work by Ben). If people feel the need to put their copyright notice on the recipes, then that’s fine. I didn’t think it was very important since recipes are very specific in format to PyBOMBS, so the copyright doesn’t protect much (the code, on the other hand, is a bit different). [1] It’s quite possible there is an even better way than how I did it via git. But I looked at various ways and discussions on this topic and picked what seemed to be the ‘preferred’ way. Oh… and if there was a better way, I don’t really care at this point 🙂 – Tom Visit us at GRCon13 Oct. 1 - 4 > **[GNU Radio Conference 2013 — Rondeau Research](http://www.trondeau.com/gnu-radio-conference-2013)** ---
**Author:** ![copot](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@copot](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/copot)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-pybombs-git-repository/236309/3 "2013-08-25T00:14:35Z")
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Tom R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > This was done on purpose. When we changed the license, we decided to > the code. I figured most of the patches submitted have largely been > recipe-related (except some code work by Ben). If people feel the need > to put their copyright notice on the recipes, then that’s fine. I > didn’t think it was very important since recipes are very specific in > format to PyBOMBS, so the copyright doesn’t protect much (the code, on > the other hand, is a bit different). > > [1] It’s quite possible there is an even better way than how I did it > via git. But I looked at various ways and discussions on this topic > and picked what seemed to be the ‘preferred’ way. Oh… and if there > was a better way, I don’t really care at this point 🙂 Ok, no problem. I’ll just clone again. Alex