That is a mischaracterization of the git story which was always about being able to support multiple version control tools. Yes people were concerned about the social side but we wouldn't be Apache without that debate.
Same here. All you are seeing is some natural skepticism about the claims being made. The door is open though to a well considered proposal that this exercise should help refine. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This conversation goes in a circle. I see two positions: > > 1: Cadence releases are inevitably incompatible with Apache community values. > 2: Cadence releases are not inevitably incompatible with Apache > community values. > > People who take the first position see this desire to use cadence as > weakening of values and the brand. People who take the second position > are frustrated. > > Note the phrase, 'not inevitably'. No one here is claiming, in the > absence of an experiment, that this idea will inevitably lead to a > perfectly healthy expression of Apache Community values. > > This conversation reminds me of the early days of the git discussion. > At that time, some folks were convinced that 'git === fork culture'. > Since 'fork culture' is pretty clearly incompatible with Apache > community values, it took a very long time for us to decide to perform > an _experiment_ in git usage to see what would happen. OK, here we > are, the git experiment has been deemed a success. > > The following is utterly non-rhetorical. Something happened over the > course of long discussion to move from 'git is evil, go away' to > 'infra is willing to put effort into the infrastructure to support an > experiment.' What was it, and is there any hope of following that > path? > > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2/12/14, 7:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I know this looks old-fashioned, even downright anachronistic to >>>> "push-hourly-from-CI" people; but deciding *what* to release *as a >>>> community* is an important responsibility of ASF PMCs. Putting >>>> things on a rigid schedule basically skips this step, which, IMHO is >>>> a core part of our common culture and values. >>> Should projects who wish to release on a regular schedule avoid Apache? >> >> I agree with Joe that that is the wrong question to ask. The right >> question is what are the basic principles and values that >> *communities* should buy into when deciding to join Apache. I >> proposed a couple of them above. How releases happen, how policy >> compliance is assured are secondary - the main thing communities >> need to ask themselves when deciding to join the ASF is do they want >> to do open, community-based development the way it is done here. If >> cutting releases on a predetermined schedule is somehow a >> "requirement" for them, the first question to ask is "why" and if >> there is a good answer to that question then the second question is >> how do you do that in a way that is consistent our principles. >> >> Phil >>> >>> Marvin Humphrey >>> . >>> >>
