On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:46 PM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Christian, >> >> I leave it up to the developers to make those decisions. Whatever tools >> help the project to move forward best for both the immediate efforts and >> the long-term managing of the brand are the right tools. Knowing that >> GitHub is a community that attracts many leading edge developers in its own >> right, having at least a mirror of the code in that environment certainly >> can't hurt. > > Sure, its about the project community to decide. > > That being said, one needs to know that GitHub is a tool, but the ASF > is more than "just" that. The ASF is a Foundation which protects you > (as a developer) > and the project from legal problems. The whole ASF is a big community. > GitHub is a set of tools, and the people forking and pull-requesting > there are not necessary > a community (of course they can become one). Still, the legal umbrella > is non-existent > there, except you build it up on your own. > > There are lot more of differences between a place like GitHub and the ASF. > > For example, GitHub is a company which hosts your code. In most cases you have > no chance to join the board or influence company decisions. > > At the ASF you can become a member - or lets say "shareholder" - of > the foundation. > You can join the board (if elected) and have an influence as member. > > The ASF of course requires a few things to successfully protect > people/projects. > One of them is a canonical hosted scm. A mirror to GitHub is of course > possible > and never the problem. From ASF view it would be a problem to use GitHub > as main scm. > > If there are more questions on exactly these things, I can offer to > join a Google Hangout > and of course will try to answer all questions by mailing list. > Upayavira has huge > knowledge what the ASF offers too. > > Cheers > Christian
Thanks. You mentioned that the code has to be first committed to the apache repositories for legal reasons. What exactly are the requirements there? Is it bad if I have my own local mirror of the project and commit there? (Technically, my local machine is a private mirror that gets my commits first). Are the problems around public distribution? Does it then also matter where code review happens? I ask because while I don't have a problem with an apache git repository being the ultimate source of truth, I also quite like github's pull requests as a system for code reviews. I'm not interested in taking the project away from apache. I actually think the community ownership model works well for this project. Github works much better with a benevolent dictator. But that said, I'd like to know what tools we can and can't use. -J
