Hi all,
Le 2013-10-08 09:10, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
I don't fully agree. The infra is also important (not more or less than
rules, just as important).
In order to answer more precisely to initial topic by James, I think
each components should have
their own repository. As per Apache workflow, we could basically have
the Apache hosted repository
as the reference, and anybody can clone it and work as they want (Git is
decentralized).
When someone people who are not committers want to contribute, they
simply can put a repo they own
somewhere so it is publicly visible (Github if they want or their own
server, whatever ...). Then
committers could review the code and decide to merge them in the
reference Apache repository, either
the full changes with history or cherry picking some parts, or even
reworking everything by cloning
the proposal repo in their own local workspace, edit everything, then
commit to the reference.
This would be *much* easier than attaching patches to JIRA.
Also moving a component from sandbox to proper to dormant would simply
putting a flag somewhere
on the web site or documentation, it needs not be enforced as a tree
structure in the repositories
with three categories and components underneath. This was well suited
with SVN since we mainly
have a very big svn server (which serves all Apache projects), but does
not seem to fit well with git.
Oh, and of course I am big +1 to switch to git, and would be ready to
help other people do the
move if they want. I am using Git since a few years now and am really
happy with it.
best regards,
Luc
For me commons looks like a big sandbox where rules are more important
than
features (btw maven is about the same today). From my understanding
commons
shouldn't be projects moving a lot but just following java versions
(generic for j5, lambda for j8 ...) or "trends" if new features are
deduced
from it (fluent APIs etc...).
All the infra doesn't help as a user and only the user experience means
something.
Just my point of view...
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
*Blog:
**http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/10/8 Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
On 8 Oct 2013, at 6:53, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
Not sure svn is the issue. What makes quality and which rules are
mandatory
is more important IMO.
If you want to attract a new generation it is important. Would you
contribute to a CVS project?
I would if you need it urgently for work. But in my prime time I
simply
don't have an
interest to install an cvs client no matter how cool the software is.
I
think a projects infrastructure
is first entry barrier for contributing.
Personally I have learned about git and it took me a while. I am not a
super-hero but I enjoy it.
Btw, Guava uses Git too:
https://code.google.com/p/**guava-libraries/source/**checkout<https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/checkout>
Following oracle java version (with a single one late - java 6 when
java 7
is the current one) is one key i think.
Another one would be to remove project from main sources/proper when
nobody
needs work on it anymore.
Separating each projects too...what a noise on commons cause of not
following it + which link between csv and math -> consistency? NB: no
project is too small.
Le 8 oct. 2013 04:15, "James Ring" <s...@jdns.org> a écrit :
Whatever workflow we came up with, if we moved to Git I'd like to
see
Gerritt
(https://code.google.com/p/**gerrit/<https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/>)
used for code review.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com
>
wrote:
All,
If we did want to move to Git, we'd probably have to figure out how
we'd manage our "workflow" (couldn't think of a better word). I
suppose we'd have a separate repo for each component? What about
proper vs. sandbox? How would we accommodate that paradigm? Has
anyone else already gone through this thought process? I must
admit,
my git fu isn't what it should be.
James
------------------------------**------------------------------**
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
------------------------------**------------------------------**
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
