qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Migrate the repo for the new JMS client work to use Git
Date Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:53:08 GMT
On 18 September 2014 10:38, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/18/2014 10:07 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> On 17 September 2014 09:25, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>>  On 09/16/2014 05:35 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>  Hello all,
>>>> I mentioned this briefly in a previous thread, and have decided just to
>>>> call a vote on the subject. I would like to migrate the repo for the new
>>>> JMS client work to use Git rather than Subversion.
>>>> This wont affect the rest of the Qpid codebase, though it could be
>>>> viewed
>>>> as a test for any such move in future. Only the bits in the following
>>>> subtree are under consideration for migation at this time:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/jms/
>>>> I believe it would make things easier for those of us currently working
>>>> on
>>>> it, and ease future usage of things like the Github integration we
>>>> can/should have Apache infra enable. For anyone still wanting to use a
>>>> Subversion client to check things out, there will still be an option
>>>> there
>>>> as e.g. Github repos can also be checked out with svn clients, and
>>>> Apache
>>>> mirror things to Github.
>>>> Please cast your votes. Even if you don't intend to work on the code in
>>>> question, please vote or at least contribute your thoughts to any
>>>> discussion that pops up. I will tally the votes after this point on
>>>> Friday,
>>>> i.e. 72hrs.
>>> I'm in favour of those doing the work deciding what suits them best. Git
>>> is now well enough established that switching isn't in any real sense
>>> raising a barrier to new contributors.
>>>  Just to be certain, is your reply to be taken as +1 vote Gordon?
> It's more in the category of 'contributing my thoughts' :-)

Thats actually what I thought, just wanted to confirm before the final

> I'm not going to be immediately involved, so I feel odd voting on it and
> since I don't think you are short of votes, I'm just saying explicitly that
> what you decide is alright with me. (as opposed to being silent which might
> be interpreted differently)

Ok. Additional votes are welcome though ;)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message