On 2023-05-08 16:18, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Graham,
On 5/8/23 05:29, Graham Leggett via dev wrote:
On 04 May 2023, at 09:34, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote:
This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write
repository from Subversion to Git.
This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer
available via svn.apache.org. It
will be available via Git at
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and
https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I
don't want to work with Github and I will only work with
what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[X]: Leave everything as is.
I would rather see proper SVN integration with Github. This is a vote
of no confidence in our own projects.
I don't see it as an anti-NIH vote or anything like that.
git simply has a bunch of superior features, behaviors, etc. that
Subversion simply will never have, regardless of any commitment of their
development team. Sure, the svn team could replicate git, but since git
already exists, why not use it?
-chris
My 2 cents on this is it's not Git vs Subversion here - it's GitHub vs
SubversionHub, and the latter doesn't exist. Given how the majority of
users use GitHub, it really isn't about how Git in any way is
better/worse than Subversion, it's 99% about the tools that GitHub offer.
VHS vs BetaMax anyone? :)
