On 10/16/13 2:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> >>>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: >>>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote: >>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it >>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1s >>>>>>> James Carman >>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>> Matt Benson >>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter >>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita >>>>>>> Gary Gregory >>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe >>>>>>> Oliver Heger >>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier >>>>>>> Torsten Curdt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -1s >>>>>>> Mark Thomas >>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl >>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic >>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski >>>>>>> Jorg Schaible >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +0.5 >>>>>>> Olivier Lamy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +0 >>>>>>> Ralph Goers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -0 >>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We >>>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we >>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is >>>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE >>>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first >>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues. >>>>> I agree entirely with Phil. >>>>> >>>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days. >>>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through. >>>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change. >>>> >>>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed >>>> through". >>> I disagree. >>> >>> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red >>> button on friday >>> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general >>> decision and >>> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a >>> single day. >>> >>> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I >>> think we should >>> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here. >> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus. >> >> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a >> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The >> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of >> Commons from svn to git. >> >> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of >> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the >> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git >> for SCM". >> > > Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let > whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?
+1 Phil > > Gary > > >>> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a >>> single component. >>> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or >>> discuss what needs to be improved. >> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have >> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted. >> >>> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just >>> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not. >>> >>> I really can't see anything bulldozed here. >> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git >> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against >> such a move. >> >>>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there >>>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers. >>>> >>>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to >>>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component >>>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If >>>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal >>>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets. >>> I have not understood it otherwise. >>> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once? >> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in >> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving >> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything >> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git. >> >>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component >>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be >>>> forced to switch to git. >>> I had the idea too and support it. >> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks >> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being >> voted on. >> >> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn >> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my >> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm >> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give >> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that >> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet. >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
