commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:10:15 GMT
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>
> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>
> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>
> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
> to change?


The best thing to change for me will be:

- I'll pay attention to Git pull requests. Right now, I do not because I
cannot simply download a patch from JIRA and use my IDE to apply it. I just
do not want to be bothered with reformatting the pull request or fiddling
with the git command line (or GitHub site) until I get git to create a diff
file SVN will digest.

- I'll be able to stash work in progress to address for urgent tasks. No
more creating a patch, saving it some place, getting a clean sandbox,
applying another patch and so on.

The other stuff will be the same but done differently (Maven magic,
day-to-day commits).

Gary


> The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
> from trunks-proper?
>
> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>
> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
> along the way :)
>
> ---
>
> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>
> > So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
> > settled right?
> > On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this
> vote?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Apache voting rules are documented at
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page
> doesn't
> > > define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
> > >
> > > It's defined in the glossary:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>



-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message