[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Santiago Gala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 2, 2008 2:48 PM, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Feb 2, 2008, at 1:20 AM, David Reiss wrote:J Aaron Farr wrote:
snip...
1. You have to use subversion.Why? Has been a vote done? where? I vote +1 for git if a vote is still open.
In the short term, the reason is because Infra doesn't yet support it, and ASF projects need to be hosted at the ASF. That's not to say we shouldn't see if there are enough existing ASF committers who'd like to use git for ASF projects, and if so, try to get Infra to support it. Even though we do have (some) paid infra staff, it's still not an easy thing to deploy a completely new tool.
In the medium term, I'd like to see a broader desire to use git, along with some thoughts as to why new projects need it instead of svn. I definitely understand your comments about infra needing to support projects. But I also don't think the ASF should try to be all things to all projects. I'd like to see how git users run projects differently than svn users, and make sure that it really fits with how we (the ASF) like to have consensus based community projects.
git feels like a different enough way to manage the core resource of any project - the code (and/or docs, test, build, etc.) that I'd like to put some thought into having us support it, rather than just jumping in - both on the infra side (scalable repository; admin expertise), legal side (how to we track all incoming changes?) and the community side (are they close to The Mythical Apache Way?). If that means some community that's in a huge hurry wants to go build their project elsewhere, that's OK with me. You can call me an elephant sometimes, too. 8-)
- Shane
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
