Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com
In-Reply-To: <525B0B53.1070900@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALznzY4_Mz8t2O9Z_n=LMWbzz4uBvf_mh-TMoCUtSPdGO3zpKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoyBqTQ+LZs+TP0KMqw0Js3o-LtNvRdKSDGjijP8e1FuPAwUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com>
 <5258521D.2090401@oliver-heger.de>
 <CAB917RLoMFXzX6gkKDXd-bqwA77_tThrKkYhzL2msN-Uc+Osaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALznzY4tS-8J2xcCs4mvTSAJXPizu_PPf4fF9Kpz47MmyxVUNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <525AF8EB.3030708@gmail.com>
 <CALznzY7PcO+4nKFBm8qt_oOyBKHF4=UEwU_Z3A2DwE5rcbi_qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <525B0B53.1070900@gmail.com>
From: James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:30:38 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALznzY7QUGFhcFCrgBYOm_jMZ6XmwZBDmz2YfvkW2GMMKM=mBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
> seeing if we can actually get consensus.  I stand by my statement
> above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
> perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
> VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
>

I will concede that the VOTE may have been a bit premature, judging by
the type of resistance we have to this move.  Although, in my defense,
there are other projects already successfully using Git and they are
alive-and-well, so I didn't think in a million years that the
opposition would be based on feasibility of git.  SVN may be the most
widely used, but my understanding is Git is definitely the most
popular (meaning a lot of people on SVN wish they could switch to
Git).  My intent was not to splinter or fracture the community.  On
the contrary, I brought this up hoping to *grow* the community.  Also,
most of the dissenting opinions were expressed after the VOTE was
started.  The original discussion thread was open for three days
before the VOTE was started.

> Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
> standardization are we going to force on components.  My view is
> less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
> at once or even ever done uniformly.
>

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about this one, especially when it comes
to SCM. I agree that we may need to be a little more loosey-goosey
with our "rules" that are project-wide (I consider myself a closest to
a libertarian :).  There have to be some things we stay consistent,
on, though.  Otherwise, why are we all grouped together, then?  If we
get too loose, then it makes it difficult for folks to jump in on
another component and help out if they get an urge (if one of my math
books falls of the shelf and hits me in the head and I get some
inspiration).

> Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
> Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
> consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
> good thing to spend time on.  I just don't think its fair to those
> who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
> VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
> move everything.
>

It would be great if you want to lend us a hand with the test
component we're creating in git, to help us iron out the workflow.  It
might be a bit cheaper than moving [math] and trying to figure out how
to do releases.  Might be more fun, too, since we're starting "green
field" :)

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