in Apache OpenNLP we were on wip and then switched to gitbox afterwards because we found that easier when merging pull requests (less forks/origins to maintain) and wanted to enforce a stricter review process for commits so that now every contribution goes through a PR which needs +1s, on the other hand in Apache Lucene / Solr we have git-wip because we use it not much differently from how we used SVN in terms of development workflows. So I would say it depends on what we look for. For now I would opt for git-wip, but I see Justin's point and if more people want to go that way I can see the benefits.
My 2 cents, Tommaso Il giorno mer 20 set 2017 alle ore 18:06 Justin Edelson < [email protected]> ha scritto: > Hi, > While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-centric > workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other projects, > so I would be more in favor of the dual-master system. > > Regards, > Justin > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > According to http://git.apache.org/ , there are two systems in use at > > the ASF: > > > > - the "Git Wip" system > > - the "Github Dual Master" > > > > I have not found any more information about these - Ian referenced the > > dual master some time ago [1], but AFAICT the "Wip" system is basically > > ASF hosted git mirrored to Github, while the "Dual Master" system > > allows us to push to Github as well as to the ASF Git. > > > > IMO the dual master system is for projects with a Github-centric > > workflow coming to the ASF, which is not our situation at all, so I'd > > go with the "Wip" system. > > > > What do others think? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Robert > > > > > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b8b0003cf9fcb1c365a9ed354fe7c > > 20c2c4c5b465c952829e0eb4c78@1458668880@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E > > >
