On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:08 AM Stefan Sperling <s...@apache.org> wrote: >...
> If the ASF at large was confident in SVN as a technology then our current > reality would look quite different. The Subversion project never managed > to grow its developer base by becoming part of the ASF. We've mostly seen > That is simply untrue. Case in point: WANdisco did not materially contribute to svn *until* the project left the CollabNet umbrella. At that point, WD put several full-time developers onto the project, and ramped up their project plans. This is a specific *fact* directly from my conversations with the CEO, over the phone and in-person at their offices in Sheffield. And WANdisco offered many developers', over many years, with very significant and important contributions. The ASF is completely confident in svn, and basically 99% of our corporate records, and some of our key workflows (eg. account requests, TLP graduation, ICLA recording) is all based on Apache Subversion. Also a fact. And zero plans to change that. Git is not envisioned to replace any of that. Your implication that the Foundation was somehow required to grow the svn community is misplaced. That is not its purpose. The Apache Subversion community is responsible for growing itself. In 2011, the Board of Directors specifically declined to assist a TLP with its community (*way* larger than svn) because that is not the purpose of the Foundation. We do not want some people "over there" on the Foundation/administrative side interfering with the technical operation, and the community dynamics of one of the communities. Or, even worse, to *pick* which communities get assistance, while others do not. No winners. No losers. (clearly: I am upset by your implication that you've been let down; the true answer is missing a step on the Foundation's role) As Daniel notes else-thread, the suggestion is not git vs. svn. It is entirely about "Do we want the tools offered by GitHub, to be made available to the Apache HTTPD community?" I'm an svn partisan, but I also appreciate GitHub for its utility. I voted +1 to move, for that reason only. Hands-down, I'd -1 a move to git. It was only GitHub that changed my opinion on this issue. Cheers, -g
