Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 64578 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2009 16:29:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Aug 2009 16:29:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 29299 invoked by uid 500); 21 Aug 2009 16:29:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29269 invoked by uid 500); 21 Aug 2009 16:29:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29257 invoked by uid 99); 21 Aug 2009 16:29:40 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:29:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=10.0 tests=BODY_ENHANCEMENT2,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of feeder.of.the.bears@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.221 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.221] (HELO mail-gx0-f221.google.com) (209.85.217.221) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:29:28 +0000 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so1246120gxk.3 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:29:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0g8SkLXrHfFbk93JEYfYN/0lx6Z2O4LBX1ioFE+gpNE=; b=Y7tyuiYUTT3NwFs11sAjfAAcazDhtprf5VSfhpy351GESE1B8bd2tFHa8TmXhSk59X IfGtXX2ulA4Yrr/+2aH4putr0zFxE3s8WZ1MONRBO2szJqTPtF1zMXvxZFahRSGxSbWn q7cBIPSTq3KHzwSkPcm41/DLvbnwXkZY0S4to= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=h4zVBITP8fpbbdPsbnmaeho6OhzEJwdRQaGeyJKGiGW5iNuZqvcHDDoWufJh68mgXf 1D4rjMaGNaCqBr8gz7szrvDrbZ5WNKzG7JLtR5gmSRYNAfRvXg/flrU9Z4O7Ou2KFVOb oB1zrSLB/4ftXqaKEj14lkp4lVRoiVkge1FHM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.18.33 with SMTP id 33mr1052757agr.113.1250872147890; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3d89f1770908210115q1b7e4709v1d1da7fd656bea97@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ESME at GitHub (was: Turtles all the way down (or how I learned to love math in computing) From: David Pollak To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ed52008d3ac0471a95e75 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0016364ed52008d3ac0471a95e75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:00 AM, David Pollak wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Richard Hirsch wrote: > >> Yes. This concerns ESME unot Lift. >> >> What I don't quite understand is the problem - "git vs apache svn" or >> "github vs apache svn"? >> >> I also don't know why we can't use the git instructions described at >> http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache. >> >> Maybe someone can enlighten me. > > > Dick, > > I'll put this information together in a longer post that addresses the > multiple issues raised by this thread... > As I've been composing a more complete answer that addresses the various concerns address in this thread (Why is Git different from SVN? What are the IP ramifications? What are the community ramifications? How can we work to optimize collaboration on open source (or why is social messaging different from email)?), I've come to the conclusion that (1) it's a bad thing to try to propose new concepts/practices/process to the ASF and (2) the ASF's IP policies do not afford the kind of protection that I need in a core project that I would build a business off. I will be glad to share my reasoning about these conclusions off-list... I don't want this to turn into another flamewar. I think the best course of action is to ignore my turtles proposal... I'll focus efforts on the existing ESME code and we can take steps forward (as opposed to a giant leap) based on what we have now. Thanks and sorry for the digression. David > but... > > The document that you linked to discusses how to use Git as a front end to > SVN. But, the limitations of SVN remain and there are none of the > collaborative benefits of Git with this mechanism. > > So... what are the collaborative benefits of Git? Git allows for very fast > branching (this is different than repository forking and pulling from other > forks... I am not advocating that and do not pull from other repositories... > but that's a digression.) What does fast branching give a development team? > > Fast branching (and amazingly simple and flexible merging) lets developers > explore. A developer (or two) can create a branch to explore a new feature > or a new implementation. The cost of branching is zero (it happens > instantly). The cost of switching branches is very low (switching branches > in Lift takes < 5 seconds). Keeping branches up to date with the place they > were branched from is very simple (rebasing is just like doing an SVN > update). > > Over the history of Lift, there have been more than 30 branches checked > into origin (the GitHub shared repository). Personally, I've created a > dozen local branches in my local repository to explore an idea. Sometimes I > "cherry pick" my changes (only take a subset of the changes) back into > master. > > The kind of exploration and resulting creativity that this mode of > development was incomprehensible to me before I started using Git. But, as > a matter of development, especially of new stuff, having 10, 20, more > branches and switching between them as one switches between thoughts is like > the difference between faxing and email. It's hard to describe the > difference, but once you experience both, you wonder how people ever did it > "the old way." > > We've had one branch in all of ESME. That is a shame. > > So, if we use SVN as our central repository, no matter the front end (Git, > svn, TortoiseSVN, etc.) we're still limited by SVN's weak and costly > branching/merging and tagging. > > Thanks, > > David > > >> >> >> D. >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Bertrand >> Delacretaz wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Gianugo >> > Rabellino wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM, David >> >> Pollak wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < >> bdelacretaz@apache.org >> >>>> wrote: >> >>> My policy with Lift is that we do not accept patches, period. ... >> > >> >> Whoa. "My policy". "Period". "No exceptions".... >> > >> > As I read it, David says "my policy *with Lift* " - I understood this >> > as a suggestion as to how ESME could use github. >> > >> > -Bertrand >> > >> > > > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Git some: http://github.com/dpp > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --0016364ed52008d3ac0471a95e75--