groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thibault Kruse <tibokr...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: PR and workflow [was [ANN] New committer: Shil Sinha]
Date Sat, 24 Oct 2015 09:56:06 GMT
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:
> On 23.10.2015 13:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 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).

I believe the alternatives right now are between a single centralized repo at
apache vs. a single centralized repo at github, so I see no need to
always mention
"centralized single".

Apache could set up something like gitlab for their repos,
(https://about.gitlab.com/),
without too much manpower involved.

Or Apache could decree that it is acceptable for projects to use
github to merge PRs
before syncing them to the "primary" repository at apache, and set up
syncing support
with commit hooks.

Since the word "primary" is open for interpretation, it might be
possible to convince
Apache that what makes a repo primary for a project is that releases
are made from
that repo, not that all merges are done there first.

Mime
View raw message