well, for gods sake and (and for the peace of the bits on my ssd) I move my 
vote to +1 as well

LieGrue,
strub




----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristian Rosenvold <[email protected]>
> To: Maven Developers List <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg 
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Maven projects sources to git
> 
>>  But GIT sucks a bit when it comes to projects like maven-shared and 
> maven-plugins which get released in portions. We already explained that with 
> long words and we might have found a compromise which doesn't hurt too 
> badly. But still it has to be verified if that works out.
> 
> Tagging the whole repo svn-style definitely works, and the
> maven-plugins repo isn't that big either. We could consider stephen's
> subdivision suggestion, but really I think it's totally viable to just
> leave one big repo. We're talking 37mb for the full history of
> everything, give or take a few bytes. Not too much by any modern
> standard.
> 
>> We now count the year 1 after goog-vs-orcl and must really be cautious about 
> intellectual property!
> 
> How is accepting a patch in Jira from user "fuzzyBear" without any
> further credentials attached (and no visible identification of a real
> or imagined person) different form a github pull request ? So while I
> agree about being careful about IP, i can't see our current regime
> being a bit different from github. You may argue that we'd want to
> tighten this, but this is the current reality for over 1 million
> committs. I have no idea of how many "John Smith" accounts there are
> in our jira, but we pretend to ignore the fact.
> 
> 
>>  But here is another example where it did not work out: A few days ago a guy 
> pinged us on #maven about the osxappbundle-maven-plugin. He just found 20++ 
> versions around on github and none of them was working correctly. He didn't 
> even know that the original one was still maintained in SVN in codehaus. So 
> we 
> went through all the versions on github and most of them contained different 
> patches. And actually all of them only worked for a very specific situation. 
> There was exactly 0 of them which worked on all 3 last OSX versions!
>> 
>> 
>>  What does this mean?
> 
> It means you can't ignore your community and not maintain software
> when you're on git. But git has opened this entry point no matter
> what, it's like a box that's been opened for the whole community and
> there's no way back on that. The "exclusive modification" right 
> that
> svn commit bit used to mean is gone. Once you learn to maintain a git
> fork you can permanently maintain a fork much simpler than before.
> It's actually something I think we should embrace, not frown upon.
> 
> On my last project, we had *permanent* forks of three major frameworks
> that git allowed us to rebase and maintain with minimal or no effort.
> Characteristic of these patches were that
> A) we had submitted them but they were rejected
> B) we were invested in deprecated stuff that the communit weren't
> maintaing any more
> C) it was simply not of a quality that would be accepted
> 
> Looking blindly at the github network graph does not give you this
> story, and it's like there's a whole new world of options available to
> OSS users. The act of submitting a patch (=pull request) simply means
> the creator of the patch is interested in submitting. The fact that I
> can browse all kinds of different hacks people have applied to my code
> does not really mean they are submitted or intended for submission.
> 
> Combined with mailing list & issue tracker activity, the stuff going
> on at github /is/ your community. If you see something cool in a
> branch on github, just add a comment requesting the author to submit
> this as a patch (or pull request if you permit it).
> 
> If we can't accept pull requests we'll just have to do some other cool
> hack. Maybe we could write github plugin that could auto-submit a jira
> ;) It's all options, and we decide
> 
> 
> Kristian
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to