commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:24:03 GMT
Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.

Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues
at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy
the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <> wrote:

> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
> this thread to be 'argued' by
> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
> test project request in INFRA, and
> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
> have a beer, and enjoy.
> On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell 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 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" <> wrote:
>>>  On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <>
>>> 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
>>>> However, that page doesn't
>>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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