commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christian Grobmeier" <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Date Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:34:48 GMT
On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:

> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see 
>>>> it
>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>
>>>> +1s
>>>> James Carman
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> Matt Benson
>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>
>>>> -1s
>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>
>>>> +0.5
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>
>>>> +0
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  
>>>> We
>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page 
>>>> for
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>
>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>
> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>
> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed 
> through".

I disagree.

We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red 
button on friday
and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general 
decision and
it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a 
single day.

Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I 
think we should
first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.

It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a 
single component.
If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or 
discuss what needs to be improved.

We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just 
wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.

I really can't see anything bulldozed here.

> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where 
> there
> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>
> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that 
> component
> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to 
> deal
> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.

I have not understood it otherwise.
Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?

> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should 
> be
> forced to switch to git.

I had the idea too and support it.

Cheers
Christian

>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message