commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russel Winder <russel.win...@concertant.com>
Subject Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/Federated Commons
Date Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:14:18 GMT
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 04:35 +0000, John Spackman wrote:
[ . . . ]
> I am prepared to upgrade Jelly to Maven2 (not that I know much about what 
> that involves, yet) and to improve the website but I have to be confident 
> that the changes will happen quickly and easily, and that the project will 
> not be retired.  Please don't get me wrong - I am very grateful for your 
> offer to apply patches etc sent via JIRA but I am cautious as I think of the 
> potential extra work that would entail and how much simpler it would be if I 
> could just issue an SVN commit.
[ . . . ]

Forgive me for butting in on a conversation but . . . 

Isn't this whole Subversion centralism problem solved by using a DVCS
such as Bazaar, or Git -- and soon, I gather, Mercurial.

Bazaar and Git can both be used as Subversion clients, using the bzr-svn
and git-svn plugins respectively -- and I believe Mercurial will getting
equivalent capability in the future.  A Bazaar branch and a Git
repository carry the entire history, can be rebased, can be used to
create patches, and indeed you can commit to a Subversion repository
direct from a branch or repository.

For a couple of my projects, Codehaus is the host so the central
mainline is a Subversion repository.  However most work is done using
Bazaar or Git since people do not need an account to be able to work
using a full VCS.  Using a DVCS makes working on a FOSS project truly
open.

-- 
Russel.
====================================================
Dr Russel Winder                 Partner

Concertant LLP                   t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203
41 Buckmaster Road,              f: +44 8700 516 084
London SW11 1EN, UK.             m: +44 7770 465 077

Mime
View raw message