incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:37:12 GMT
Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
respect to revision control. It was our intention to make SVN read
only and use Git for regular dev as we have been since the project
inception. It is a topic we hope to cooperatively explore, and
educate, on our experiences with. In short, Git, and by extension
Github have been pivotal in our community growth, adoption, and
contribution. The solution is not to ignore the history and simply
move to SVN --- it would be detrimental to our community and that is,
I'm certain we all agree, our greatest strength. Additionally, this is
an opportunity to really show the world a more nimble ASF.

Rather than strong language about voting in and/or out we'd rather a
discussion around the specific points of contention. Our community,
and contributors, all use and expect Git support. Git revision control
is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
continents and companies.

Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
importing our code into SVN. Moving into ASF infrastructure is
something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
concern. I know we have tools at Adobe to look at this --- I am
certain our other contributors do too.

Lets look to setting an example that looks forward. Know too we really
appreciate the guidance here. Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)


On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>> like this is a unique situation.
>
> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>
> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>
> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>

Mime
View raw message