On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:20 -0800, David Reiss wrote: > J Aaron Farr wrote: > > git could be an issue. > > Can you explain what the issue is with Git? We have at least seven > contributors (three at Facebook, four external) using git-svn right now, and > I > know that at least a few of us would really like to use native Git as the > main > repository for Thrift. Paul Querna mentioned on the Thrift list that Apache > likes things to happen "in the open", but he said that others could explain > it > better.
I think the main issue is one of uniformity, not a technology. I'm quite happy to believe that git has some significant advantages. However, the ASF has currently standardised on Subversion. It is where _all_ of the ASF's code lies. If one ASF project chooses an alternative source control, we no longer have all the code in one place. We already have this 'diversified' situation with wikis and with bug tracking. We have two wikis (moin and confluence) and three bug trackers (Jira/bugzilla/Scarab - although Scarab may have been shut down already), and it certainly makes life harder in terms of maintenance. So, as an ASF infrastructure person, my first response to git would be 'no', much like an accountant's answer would be 'no' when you ask them for money. I think you should assume that you won't have git as a part of what you get at Apache. You are welcome to enter the Apache world, and evangelise as to why git would be good for the whole ASF, and it is certainly not impossible that it could be adopted. However, if a project made something like the installation and use of git a core part of their proposal, you can be sure it wouldn't be accepted. I hope that makes it a little clearer. It isn't the easiest thing to explain. Regards, Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
