On 23.10.2015 13:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote:
OK, so Apache still doesn't really get Git and GitHub oriented
workflows,
Sure we do.
and because of the "one true repository at Apache" policy, it is largely
ignored. Now some people say it is ignored because they don't get it,
while others say Apache cannot do it like that for legal reasons. The
result is the same. Git and GitHub oriented workflows are more or less
cumbersome or impossible.
[...]
What is the fundamental workflow problem that you feel is
causing pain? Whatever it is, we must fix it, even if we have to
subvert the current official "Apache Way" workflow.
Really? I assume that one reason Groovy joined the ASF is
so it could partake of the numerous successes enjoyed by
ASF projects which use and depend on the 'current official
"Apache Way" workflow', whatever that is.
I really don't like "partake" here. Groovy joined Apache mainly because
Codehaus did shut down and Apache was the best alternative. Considering
for example how smoothly we got the JIRA over, this was imho a good
choice too.
Having a workflow
that works and is easy so that unpaid volunteers can actually achieve
progress on the project, but nonetheless ends up with the Apache
repository as mainline, is far, far, far more important than adherence
to some particular quasi-political philosophy.
You do know, of course, that this workflow that has been used for
decades at the ASF was started by and built-around and designed-for
unpaid volunteers to do just that, right?
Oh,I would be careful with "used for decades". Just because people don't
know it better and got used it, doesn't mean it is good. I would for
example not want to change from Git (or Subversion) to CVS, just because
CVS is in use for decades. Back then, there was no real alternative.
Today times are different and there are different established workflows.
And you know that most people don't go to the extra effort of changing
their established workflow, just for a small commit. That means less
contributions, which means in the end less committers.
Times change and so do the methods.
The only reason I see to keep the centralized singled repo way is for
legal reasons. And since that is a very strong reason there is nothing
really to discuss with github for the moment. Unless there is some kind
of cooperation between apache and github, or apache offers something
like github (I doubt there is enough manpower for that).
bye blackdrag
