Hi, Just reiterating my +1 for the move. A huge benefit in my eyes is a reduced barrier to entry for new developers and contributors.
Tyler On Jan 2, 2016 4:34 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > One final note - this isn't a vote to make GitHub the canonical repo. In > the future if Whimsy goes well I'd like to explore that but here I am > simply proposing to use the ASF writeable Git repos (which happen to be > mirrored to GH). > > Cheers, > Chris > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 2, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > > Hey Ken, > > > > Projects have been using writeable git repos at the ASF since 2009-2010. > The recent conversation at the foundation level was - should we allow > GitHub as a canonical external repo and more broadly - is this possible in > general? The Whimsy project is currently undergoing that experiment and > it's going well but nothing official to report yet. > > > > Beyond that - projects can release from and use writeable Git repos. > Some projects were getting around history by squashing commits ahead of the > repo and getting around infra's checks on master (aka trunk) by using > different main branch names but we're not in that boat. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jan 2, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Ken Krugler <kkrugler_li...@transpac.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chris, > >> > >> I'd be +1, but I don't have the essence of the "Re: git (Was: > ASF/GitHub Findings of Fact / Statements of Principles)" thread on the > Apache members list clearly in my mind. > >> > >> Specifically, while that thread was spinning merrily away, there were > concerns about immutability when using git. > >> > >> E.g. one comment was... > >> > >>> releases must correspond to an immutable tag in a repository on ASF > hardware. > >>> > >>> "Canonical" is needed for releases, and for IP provenance, so I'd > augment the above with a second requirement: for each release tag, we must > be able to establish the provenance of all files referenced by that tag. > >>> > >>> I believe that is the essence of the Foundation's requirements for > version control. Both can be satisfied via svn or git. Git may require > external sources to satisfy one or both of those requirements. svn > inherently has the first nailed, and is much easier for provenance (there > may be edge cases I'm missing offhand, but we know the ICLA/grant > associated with each change leading up to the tagged release). > >> > >> Did it wind up as "projects can experiment with using git for official > releases"? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- Ken > >> > >>> From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > >>> Sent: January 1, 2016 8:30:16pm PST > >>> To: dev@tika.apache.org > >>> Subject: [VOTE] Moving SCM to Git > >>> > >>> Hi Everyone, > >>> > >>> DISCUSS thread here: http://s.apache.org/wVE > >>> > >>> Time to officially VOTE on moving Tika to Git. I’ve made a wiki > >>> page for our SCM explaining how to use Git at Apache, and how to > >>> use it with Github, and how to use it even in a traditional SVN > >>> sense. The page is here: > >>> > >>> https://wiki.apache.org/tika/UsingGit > >>> > >>> > >>> I’ve also linked it from the main wiki page. I took the liberty > >>> of updating the only other 2 pages on the wiki that referenced > >>> SCM with (pending) Git instructions as well: > >>> > >>> https://wiki.apache.org/tika/DeveloperResources > >>> https://wiki.apache.org/tika/ReleaseProcess > >>> > >>> From the DISCUSS thread it would seem the following members of > >>> the community support this move: > >>> > >>> Chris Mattmann > >>> Tyler Palsulich > >>> Bob Paulin > >>> Hong-Thai Nguyen > >>> > >>> Oleg Tikhonov > >>> David Meikle > >>> > >>> > >>> Given the above I’m going to count the above people as +1 in > >>> this VOTE if I don’t hear otherwise. > >>> > >>> Nick Burch said he would be more supportive if there was a guide, > >>> so I made one and updated the other wiki docs as above so hopefully > >>> that garners his VOTE. > >>> > >>> If you’d like to revise your VOTE or to VOTE for the first time, > >>> please use the ballot below: > >>> > >>> [ ] +1 Move the Apache Tika source control to Writeable Git repos > >>> at the ASF > >>> [ ] +0 Indifferent. > >>> [ ] -1 Don’t move the Apache Tika source control to Writeable Git > >>> repos at the ASF because.. > >>> > >>> Of course, given the conversation I am +1 for this. > >>> > >>> Thanks for VOTE’ing I’ll leave the VOTE open through next Friday. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > >>> Chief Architect > >>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > >>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > >>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > >>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > >>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > >>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> -------------------------- > >> Ken Krugler > >> +1 530-210-6378 > >> http://www.scaleunlimited.com > >> custom big data solutions & training > >> Hadoop, Cascading, Cassandra & Solr > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------- > >> Ken Krugler > >> +1 530-210-6378 > >> http://www.scaleunlimited.com > >> custom big data solutions & training > >> Hadoop, Cascading, Cassandra & Solr > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
