I apologize if my points below are invalidated by other responses. I haven't had time to read the whole thread. At any rate...
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: > The actual model in Apache is very old and is proving to be a failure > in actual days. The fact that we don't have a valid workflow based on > the voted option some months ago with Git, Github and nvie Git > branching model is one of the things that is making this project fail. I will take issue with that entire paragraph. The statement about the apache model is just FUD until you give evidence to support how it is a failure in today's world. There are actually many projects that are thriving in the Apache model and the stability of that model is one thing that attracts organizations who are looking for an open source home to host projects they want to donate. It's true that the apache model has been around for quite a while and probably needs to evolve for the new decade it is living in. But evolving that model into the current environment is difficult without breaking some of the things that are extremely important conceptually to that model. It's a long, frustrating, arduous process, but for those of us who think there's value in the model as well as the projects it supports, it's worth the effort. Now, to your actual point about Git, etc. It's worth noting that all the mentors cautioned against that move precisely because it would be difficult and time-consuming to get it implemented. Our fear was that it would further stall the progress of the project because we'd be focusing on SCM and branching strategies rather than working on the code. I believe some of that fear has verified. My belief was and still is that we'd be better off getting stuff done in Subversion right now than trying to figure out how make Git work for us. I'm doing that exact very thing at work right now and we are making progress on our project. There's more but it will have to wait. I'm out of time. Greg
