The canonical source of the code should be on Apache hardware. Ideally, all development and collaboration should happen on Apache hardware, without dependency on third parties. That's the aim, anyway.
What *you* do, is up to you. That is, if you choose to code on github, and post pull requests to the ASF Git, etc - your code still gets into the canonical repo that way. What matters is regarding collaboration - that the community can collaborate in a way that it can control and manage. That's why expecting people to use github would be a no-no, in my view. Upayavira On Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 08:29 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote: > 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
