+1 to move the repo to Git for the same reasons already listed by others. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 February 2017 at 23:41, Jim Gomes <jgo...@apache.org> wrote: > > Breaking this out into its own discussion thread... > > > > It has been proposed that Apache.NMS Subversion repository be moved to a > > Git repository. While the dominate reason seems to be "that's what > > everyone else is doing", I'm sure there are more technical reasons for > the > > proposal. I will let others offer up those reasons for the move. > > > > As for my position, Subversion has been sufficient, but I'm not entirely > > opposed to the move as long as certain technical requirements can be met. > > These technical requirements can be entirely met if the Git repository is > > automatically mirrored to GitHub, which allows for Subversion clients to > > access a Git repository. In that case, the port to a Git repository > > back-end would be completely transparent. > > > > So, let's discuss the technical merits on moving the repository to Git. > > I'd also agree that whilst moving the NMS bits to Git is not strictly > necessary to do such work as outlined in the propsal thread, doing so > would make contributing easier for many folks, especially > non-committers. It would also make it easier for any committers > participating in that process. Regardless of that, it would also be > nice to be consistent with all the other ActiveMQ components. > > Yes, it is true that people can use git-svn to interact with svn > repositories. I used to do so for many years, and still do > occasionally on one svn holdout (more on it below), which is a little > annoying. Using git-svn is definitely nicer than using svn directly, > but still not as nice as using Git directly. It is also something new > for many folks to learn when there is a high probability they are > using pure Git these days, and an increasing chance over time that its > actually all some people are familiar with. > > As Tim mentioned, it is possible to have Git and GitHub mirrors even > for Subversion based repositories here at Apache. There are downsides > to this, e.g. I've seen 15-40mins syncs to GitHub recently on the last > example of it over at Qpid currently (thankfully it is already slated > to move to Git, as everything else at Qpid has already, once some > in-progress tree surgery on the components is complete), however it is > substantially better than not having the mirrors at all. For me, its > less work (for us, and for infra, who would have to rework any > git+github mirrors again later if the source repo later moves to Git) > and gives a better result for most people to move it to Git at this > point. As you noted, GitHub allows svn clients to interact with the > repos which would allow a path for anyone needing svn to continue > using it. > > Robbie >
