Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Nov 8, 2011 3:37 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/11/11 07:17, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >> On 7 November 2011 15:33, Damian Steer<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7 Nov 2011, at 23:14, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/11/11 16:19, Damian Steer wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> +1. I agree that this would make life easier for external contributors >>>>> (although they could use the excellent git svn). Managing development >>>>> is a pain when you can't commit. Its merging is also much more >>>>> pleasant, a significant factor if you've branched from a live code base. >>>> >>>> >>>> Minor point -- external contributors need to be aware they can't push contributions (something for the "getting involved" page?) >>> >>> >>> The apache page [1] Alex mentioned is pretty good. For people using github we ought to mention that we won't respond to pull requests. >>> >> >> The use of Git in ASF projects is something that is still being >> explored. There are significant potential issues with respect to >> community development where Git is employed. >> >> However, the project needs to be very careful. Git should not be seen >> as an alternative to bringing committers into the project. The goal is >> to get people working directly on the code as a core part of the >> project. Git is often used to facilitate people working in isolation >> of the broader community. >> >> That being said, Git does provide some advantages. Go ahead and >> request the mirrors, but don't allow Git workflows to become a >> replacement for bringing people into the project at the earliest >> sensible opportunity. > > > Ross, > > Thanks for the perspective - svn remains primary. We would need to be aware that patches still need to be from the submitter themselves, and not passed on by rolling up downstream git pushes. > > The thing I like about git is the ability to do lots of small commits, with their own comments, and roll them up into one collection of changes. >
Yes, there are quite a few advantages, but many of these can quickly become disadvantages. For example, many small commits become one large one. Large commits can be difficult to review and don't give the community to give early feedback. Git is only a tool. It in itself is not bad. However it is a tool that was designed for a different development process than that found in ASF projects. Personally I believe the downsides can be managed. Others in the ASF are less sure. I'm looking forwards to you guys showing me the way to manage things. Ross > It is an alternative and light-weight route to people wanting the code, who are already used to git and don't use svn much. > > Andy > >>> [1]<http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 8, 2011 3:37 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote:
