Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 81273 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2009 23:20:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2009 23:20:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 64026 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2009 23:20:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 63966 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2009 23:20:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cassandra-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 63956 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2009 23:20:58 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:20:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.210.193] (HELO mail-yx0-f193.google.com) (209.85.210.193) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:20:48 +0000 Received: by yxe31 with SMTP id 31so2843462yxe.32 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.92.16 with SMTP id p16mr2327908agb.99.1245971600345; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.172.32.59? (h-64-236-138-3.aoltw.net [64.236.138.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 39sm2554116agd.6.2009.06.25.16.13.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Ian Holsman To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <1245942004.13840.25.camel@achilles> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: Re: Time to move to (ASF-sanctioned) git? Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:13:16 +1000 References: <1245942004.13840.25.camel@achilles> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org If gerrit is that much better jira we could make a case for it. I mean.. ASF's using git as well as SVN.. It's isn't a government department or a fortune 500 with a IT standard which is iron solid. It's more a support issue. we mainly rely on volunteers to keep the boxes running (and yes it needs to be hosted on ASF hardware), and having every project use their favorite tool for doing X makes it much harder to manage. as for CTR (commit than review) or RTC (review than commit). thats a project decision. If you guys feel more comfortable at this stage of the project to go to RTC, then put it up for vote on do it. your grownups, you know the risks and rewards. -I On 26/06/2009, at 1:00 AM, Eric Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:28 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> Yesterday I posted about my git-svn workflow [1]. What I didn't >> expect was that a member of ASF infrastructure who is setting up a >> pilot project [2] based on git + gerrit [3] instead of svn + jira >> asked if we'd be interested in helping test it out. >> >> They are setting it up so it will still push changes back to svn so >> we >> can always go back to svn if it doesn't work out. > > So what would the overall work-flow look like? As others have said, > Gerrit is only for review and Jira would still be in the picture. If > we > had a dedicated code review tool, would we still attach patches to > tickets? I'd be happy if I didn't have to shave that particular yak > anymore. > > -- > Eric Evans > eevans@rackspace.com > -- Ian Holsman Ian@Holsman.net