www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Wave project: Git for source control
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:00:26 GMT
Hello
We at the Apache Wave project are just about to migrate the source code to
SVN, but we have heard, there's an option now to use Git for source control
instead of SVN (please see 1 and 2 below). Can we please get more info on
this?
If this is possible to have Git repo for read and write, then can you please
provide support with setting it up?
Thanks
Yuri

[1] -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201109.mbox/%3C400B8FD70F37440E98F7D00632936DB9@gmail.com%3E
[2] - https://twitter.com/#!/davisp/status/117446331714383872

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:

> Guys,
>
> don't want to spread to much confusion now.... but just heard of this
> in another mail:
>
> [1] -
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201109.mbox/%3C400B8FD70F37440E98F7D00632936DB9@gmail.com%3E
> [2] - https://twitter.com/#!/davisp/status/117446331714383872
>
> Seems like GIT is allowed - but have no proof for it
> Mercurial is not GIT - but very GITish. Maybe this is an option for
> you? If yes, you should ask at infra if that works or not.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Michael MacFadden
> <michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yuri,
> >
> > I wanted to coordinate with you on this.  Is there a date/time that works
> well for you.  I have a least one code review I owe you.  Would you prefer
> to get the couple outstanding code reviews completed so you can get that
> code checked in before the move.
> >
> > Basically, we need to establish a mini code freeze.
> >
> > ~Michael
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Yuri Z wrote:
> >
> >> We postponed the move until 28-th Sep as by Michael's request.  The Wiki
> for PMC was updated accordingly on 13-th Sep.
> >> BTW, @Michael, when are you planning to complete the move?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Doug <douglas.linder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/
> >> branches/
> >> site/
> >> tags/
> >> trunk/
> >> arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/trunk
> >> arc:~ douglasl$
> >>
> >> ...?
> >>
> >> ~
> >> Doug.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 good to see some progress here!
> >> > I am really looking forward to a first release :-)
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Michael MacFadden
> >> > <michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > I think we have reached a consensus on the clean check in approach.
>  We
> >> > should be able to mention that we have decided on the approach in the
> >> > report.  Should we also set a target date for doing the migration?  I
> am
> >> > more than happy to do the migration.  I think we should give ourselves
> 2
> >> > weeks to actually move the code over, just to be safe.  This way we
> can
> >> > discuss any organization or structural issues that may come up.
> >> > >
> >> > > If we have a method and a date, then I think we have a good plan to
> put
> >> > in the board report.
> >> > >
> >> > > ~Michael
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:12 PM, "Jasper Horn"
> >> > >> <jasperhorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>> Upayavira wrote:
> >> > >>>> Right, the source code is the project's most valuable
possession.
> The
> >> > >>>> ASF as a charitable organisation exists to produce software,
> therefore
> >> > >>>> it must be in control of its main asset, the asset it
exists to
> >> > create!
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Talk about "control", "possessions" and "assets" doesn't sound
> much
> >> > >>> like Open Source to me...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> All software is owned (with the exception of public domain). Open
> source
> >> > >> software makes strong use of copyright law, which is all about
> >> > >> 'ownership'. Open source isn't about ownership, it is about
> licensing.
> >> > >> Apache 'owns' the code (actually, owns the copyright on the
> collection,
> >> > >> that is made up of individual parts which are owned by the
> respective
> >> > >> authors), but then, in keeping with its non-profit mission, it
> makes
> >> > >> that code available with a very liberal license to anyone who
wants
> to
> >> > >> use it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> As a part of that, people have come to trust Apache software,
and
> that
> >> > >> needs some protecting - making sure that we keep to an approach
> that is
> >> > >> worthy of that trust. So yes, Apache does protect its code. Apache
> does
> >> > >> protect its trademarks. It is all Apache exists for. It protects
> its
> >> > >> code and the methods used to create it so that it *can* make it
> >> > >> available to the public, for no charge.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>>> There's scope to host code on git on Apache infrastructure,
but
> that
> >> > >>>> requires volunteers to assist with a deployment.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> What would need to be done?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You can join the infrastructure-dev@a.o mailing list and ask
> there. I'm
> >> > >> not so sure about all the details. But bear in mind that the kind
> of
> >> > >> install that Apache needs is more substantial than most. It needs
a
> >> > >> workflow that effectively tracks code's origins (SVN does this
> well,
> >> > >> with git, as I understand it, there are ways to work around this).
> But,
> >> > >> to be honest, I'm not sure what the current road blocks are other
> than
> >> > >> volunteer time.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Upayavira
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>

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