I'm not convinced at all this will work out well for the project, with the graduation coming up soon (which will mean moving and changing a lot of stuff in SVN and elsewhere) and all. But I'll shut up about this (for now).
Maybe you can do me (and other doubters and SVN aficionados) and write up the current status of the move, the planned actions for the move and the implications of the move for contributors, committers and the project in general? Thanks, EdB On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >> Omar, >> >> >> From the threads here and on the private list I get the feeling that >> >> at least one of our mentors has reservations about the legal standing >> >> of Git repos in relation to Apache.org. >> > >> > >> > Those concerns have been expressed before, during, and after the vote. It >> > obviously did not deter either the community or the PPMC. >> > >> >> Actually, looking closer at the results, the vote was split 8 - 8 >> between moving to Git and keep using SVN (for now). Only, the way the >> vote was called fragmented the 'against Git' votes. Also of note is >> that ALL THREE of the mentors thought it wisest to stay with SVN (for >> now). But I don't want to redo the vote, I just don't want the project >> to rush into this without thinking about the "in real life" >> consequences. >> > > Sorry but you are misrepresenting the vote results to support your argument. > > The vote was for 3 options, as you can review here: > http://markmail.org/search/?q=+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.flex-dev+VOTE+RESULT#query:%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.flex-dev%20VOTE%20RESULT+page:3+mid:ajlskznzec4wqda2+state:results > > One option had 3 votes, a second option had 5 votes and the winning option > had 8, binding votes. You can't simply lump two losing options together to > formulate an argument against an option that you have a concern about to > revoke a vote that already happened. > > Furthermore, I would hardly say that we are about to "rush into this > without thinking about the 'in real life' consequences". We voted for this > on 8/15, that was just over 3 months ago. To say we are rushing through the > changes is kind of ludicrous. > > >> >> > Infra to support Apache projects. I would not be so concerned. >> >> Well, I am concerned, and I have been since the time of the vote. But >> now I am PPMC and have a responsibility to point out things that might >> harm the project. Moving a project as complex as this to another SCM >> is not a trivial thing and what I'm reading is that a few very vocal >> people want this, but none of them is willing to volunteer with INFRA >> to support this. That worries me and I have yet to be convinced that >> this project can handle a move this big, at this time. >> >> EdB >> > > You're right it is not a trivial thing, thus why we have taken our time > over the last few months to slowly move things over, starting with getting > GitHub mirrors in place and trying to find a volunteer for the GIt support. > I, as well as a few others, have expressed the desire to volunteer for this > position except I am not yet suited to be effective due to my lack of > knowledge as a Python developer. On any other front I am willing to spend > time on this. Regardless, making a move would still be weeks away being > that we would still have to make a request with Apache INFRA and then we > would have to wait for a response from them in order to start to formulate > a migration plan and schedule. This wouldn't happen over night, it would be > a weeks long process. Nobody is going to be 'rushing' into this, because > frankly, its not possible under the constraints that we have to run these > Apache projects under. > > -omar -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
