groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: PR and workflow [was [ANN] New committer: Shil Sinha]
Date Sat, 24 Oct 2015 09:28:00 GMT
On 23.10.2015 13:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> OK, so Apache still doesn't really get Git and GitHub oriented
>> workflows,
>
> Sure we do.

and because of the "one true repository at Apache" policy, it is largely 
ignored. Now some people say it is ignored because they don't get it, 
while others say Apache cannot do it like that for legal reasons. The 
result is the same. Git and GitHub oriented workflows are more or less 
cumbersome or impossible.

[...]
>> What is the fundamental workflow problem that you feel is
>> causing pain? Whatever it is, we must fix it, even if we have to
>> subvert the current official "Apache Way" workflow.
>
> Really? I assume that one reason Groovy joined the ASF is
> so it could partake of the numerous successes enjoyed by
> ASF projects which use and depend on the 'current official
> "Apache Way" workflow', whatever that is.

I really don't like "partake" here. Groovy joined Apache mainly because 
Codehaus did shut down and Apache was the best alternative. Considering 
for example how smoothly we got the JIRA over, this was imho a good 
choice too.

>> Having a workflow
>> that works and is easy so that unpaid volunteers can actually achieve
>> progress on the project, but nonetheless ends up with the Apache
>> repository as mainline, is far, far, far more important than adherence
>> to some particular quasi-political philosophy.
>
> You do know, of course, that this workflow that has been used for
> decades at the ASF was started by and built-around and designed-for
> unpaid volunteers to do just that, right?

Oh,I would be careful with "used for decades". Just because people don't 
know it better and got used it, doesn't mean it is good. I would for 
example not want to change from Git (or Subversion) to CVS, just because 
CVS is in use for decades. Back then, there was no real alternative. 
Today times are different and there are different established workflows. 
And you know that most people don't go to the extra effort of changing 
their established workflow, just for a small commit. That means less 
contributions, which means in the end less committers.

Times change and so do the methods.

The only reason I see to keep the centralized singled repo way is for 
legal reasons. And since that is a very strong reason there is nothing 
really to discuss with github for the moment. Unless there is some kind 
of cooperation between apache and github, or apache offers something 
like github (I doubt there is enough manpower for that).

bye blackdrag



Mime
View raw message