www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next steps with git (Was: Added a simple tutorial on Git cloning)
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:19:53 GMT
Hi,

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Grzegorz Kossakowski
<gkossakowski@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting pisze:
>> For example I've been thinking of changing the svn.eu.apache.org in
>> the commit logs to svn.apache.org.
>
> Is there any reason for doing that? I thought that both svn.eu.a.o and svn.a.o are considered
as
> official even if, technically, the first one is a mirror.

Two reasons:

a) As reported, dcommit works better with svn.apache.org.

b) There's nothing EU-specific about the version histories, so having
the name of the regional mirror embedded in the git commit logs feels
wrong.

>> I have a dedicated email address git@jukka.zitting.name invokes
>> email-update.sh whenever a new commit message is received.
>
> Ok, but I was asking more about how you do it in terms of setting up appropriate
> Linux tools. I have no experience with processing e-mails at Linux.

I have a standard sendmail installation (from RHEL) and I've just
added the git@ address as an entry in the aliases file. Even a
"|email-update.sh" entry in a .forward file should do the trick if you
want to experiment with it.

> It looks like I misunderstood your intentions previously. I thought you would like to
> ask infra just for a zone so we can try to setup everything in usual Apache infrastructure
> environment but still keep it highly experimental.

I think we've already solved all the major technical issues, so I
think we should start turning the git mirrors from an experiment to
something that people could confidently use as a part of their
standard workflow.

> If we are going to stay closer to infra team with our effort and at the same time make
> it less experimental then I guess it would be helpful that infra folks speak up now.
> I would like to know what kind of requirements we would have to fulfill in order to
> become a part of infra team to some limited extent.

I was actually made a member of the Infra team recently based on the
git work. :-)

> To make it more clear: I would like to know what do we have to do in order to be
> ready to migrate to Apache's hardware.

Based on discussions in the last ApacheCon I think the Infra team is
happy with the direction we've taken with the git mirrors and that it
shouldn't be a problem to get a Solaris zone or something similar for
this purpose. Beyond that we just need to document the setup
reasonably well and make sure that there's sufficient interest so that
the mirrors will remain maintained even when some of us focus our
interest elsewhere.

> > Also, how do we decide whether a potential new
> > development pattern enabled by Git tools is beneficial or not?
>
> I fail to understand your last question. Why do we need to decide? I guess that
> if most committers (or better PMC members) feel something works better for
> them then they should use it. Do you have anything specific in mind?

More a philosophical question. I'm pretty sure that there'll be cases
where people using git will be pushing the boundaries of traditional
Apache-style development.

For example what happens if a pair of committers decide to push and
pull directly from each other when working on a feature branch instead
of going through svn? What if we have proper notifications of all the
exchanged changes going to the appropriate mailing list?

The conventional wisdom says that all code changes should go through
svn or as patches sent to an issue tracker or a mailing list. Should
we stick to that guideline or embrace the new workflow enabled by git?

I guess only time will tell, and my question was mostly meant as an
indicator that these are the sorts of issues we'll likely encounter.
Perhaps we could come up with some general guidelines on how to
approach such issues.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message