Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.
Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and restart. Hen On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@apache.org> wrote: > Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving > this thread to be 'argued' by > those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the > test project request in INFRA, and > so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and > have a beer, and enjoy. > > > On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > >> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator >> of >> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this >> is >> to do with code, it's not code itself. >> >> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached. >> >> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference >> for >> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction. >> >> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going >> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving >> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons >> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not >> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way >> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix >> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central >> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because >> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to >> putting >> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use >> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always >> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items >> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we >> move >> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of >> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing >> from trunks-proper? >> >> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To >> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more >> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However >> this >> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the >> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were >> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems. >> >> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. >> We're >> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only >> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there >> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my >> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost >> along the way :) >> >> --- >> >> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay >> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those >> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those >> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the >> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a >> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice >> in the choice of system being interacted with. >> >> Hen >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote: >> >> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is >>> settled right? >>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote? >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at >>>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>. >>>> However, that page doesn't >>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from. >>>> >>>> It's defined in the glossary: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> --------- >>>> 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 > >
