activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Move Apache.NMS project to Git
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:54:26 GMT
So, do we have a consensus then?

Should I just open a JIRA on Infra to make the conversion?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Christopher Shannon
<christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to move the repo to Git for the same reasons already listed by others.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15 February 2017 at 23:41, Jim Gomes <jgomes@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Breaking this out into its own discussion thread...
>> >
>> > It has been proposed that Apache.NMS Subversion repository be moved to a
>> > Git repository.  While the dominate reason seems to be "that's what
>> > everyone else is doing", I'm sure there are more technical reasons for
>> the
>> > proposal. I will let others offer up those reasons for the move.
>> >
>> > As for my position, Subversion has been sufficient, but I'm not entirely
>> > opposed to the move as long as certain technical requirements can be met.
>> > These technical requirements can be entirely met if the Git repository is
>> > automatically mirrored to GitHub, which allows for Subversion clients to
>> > access a Git repository.  In that case, the port to a Git repository
>> > back-end would be completely transparent.
>> >
>> > So, let's discuss the technical merits on moving the repository to Git.
>>
>> I'd also agree that whilst moving the NMS bits to Git is not strictly
>> necessary to do such work as outlined in the propsal thread, doing so
>> would make contributing easier for many folks, especially
>> non-committers. It would also make it easier for any committers
>> participating in that process. Regardless of that, it would also be
>> nice to be consistent with all the other ActiveMQ components.
>>
>> Yes, it is true that people can use git-svn to interact with svn
>> repositories. I used to do so for many years, and still do
>> occasionally on one svn holdout (more on it below), which is a little
>> annoying. Using git-svn is definitely nicer than using svn directly,
>> but still not as nice as using Git directly. It is also something new
>> for many folks to learn when there is a high probability they are
>> using pure Git these days, and an increasing chance over time that its
>> actually all some people are familiar with.
>>
>> As Tim mentioned, it is possible to have Git and GitHub mirrors even
>> for Subversion based repositories here at Apache. There are downsides
>> to this, e.g. I've seen 15-40mins syncs to GitHub recently on the last
>> example of it over at Qpid currently (thankfully it is already slated
>> to move to Git, as everything else at Qpid has already, once some
>> in-progress tree surgery on the components is complete), however it is
>> substantially better than not having the mirrors at all. For me, its
>> less work (for us, and for infra, who would have to rework any
>> git+github mirrors again later if the source repo later moves to Git)
>> and gives a better result for most people to move it to Git at this
>> point. As you noted, GitHub allows svn clients to interact with the
>> repos which would allow a path for anyone needing svn to continue
>> using it.
>>
>> Robbie
>>



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message