Forwarding, as I have been unable to post to community and a number of
other lists because of the way gmail mangles the headers.
--- Begin Message ---
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:
> >> git could be an issue.
> >
> > Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
>
> Probably not very well :-). Basically, we know how to do the apache-
> style open source process using centralized version control, we don't
> quite know how to do it using (significantly) different version
> control models.
>
> That can (will?) change, but it probably can't change very quickly.
>
> > Let me say in closing, though, that I don't want this issue to hold
> > up the vote on Thrift.
>
> I think it's a good idea to treat it as a seperate topic.
>
> > I think that everyone involved with the project thinks that Apache
> > is the best place for it, and if the PMC says we have to use
> > Subversion, we will.
>
> Cool.
>
> 1. You have to use subversion.
>
Why? Has been a vote done? where? I vote +1 for git if a vote is still open.
> 2. You are cordially invited to engage within apache to see what we
> can do about modifying rule #1.
>
Can you elaborate on what "engage within apache" means in this
context? I have been "engaged within apache" for almost 8 years now,
including membership and being an officer for some time, and yet I
don't understand what "engage with apache" means. I don't even hope
new people will.
> For #2, I can immediately imagine some ways to use git-svn that are
> quite acceptable. I can also imagine some things that are probably
> not so easily acceptable. I can imagine a BoF session at the next
> ApacheCon about it :-)
>
This effectively means: you can use whatever you want, provided that
it is subversion.
But what concerns me most is that the Foundation is effectively
turning into a bureaucracy, where norms appear out of nowhere without
any justification.
I see no mention to community reasons here, and any resource based
reasons have tiny justification, specially when those are not even
stated. Infrastructure used to be a support for the projects, not the
other way around.
While I understand some of the practical reasons stated in this
thread, I don't understand the "legalist" note on it, neither the
normative answers ("who makes those norms"?). The ASF used to be a
loose community of projects, at least technically and codewise, and I
think what SCM is used is a very important technical decision for
project and community.
BTW, I'm copying community@apache.org, in an effort to keep a mostly
dead list going.
Regards,
Santiago
>
> cheers,
>
>
> - Leo, fan (but not active user) of git
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--- End Message ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
