Re: Feedback on Flex board report
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > I just wanted to thank you for the feedback you provided in your last > board report with respect to your experiences with moving to Git. This > kind of information is really useful to those in other projects. For > the benefit of the archives (and ComDev PMC) I've copied the relevant > section at the end of this mail. > > I'd really like to see this documented in the ComDev project. Perhaps > in the section "For Commtters/PMCs". This could form the start of a > page on best practices for version control which would link out to > appropriate documentation on Git and SVN workflows, review processes > etc. > > If anyone in the Flex community can write up your experiences as > documentation on that site (it is editable by all committers) we'd > really appreciate it.Note, the ComDev site is intended to "signpost" > into more detailed documentation. The idea is not to be fully detailed > but to provide a high level overview linking out to the details. To > this end the content in the board report is at about the right level > for the ComDev site, it just needs a little context padding for the > ComDev site. If you have process documents on your own project pages > please feel free to link to them as appropriate. > > If someone does find the time - thank you in advance. If not, then > thank you for including it in the board report. Hopefully I or another > ComDev memver will find the time to move it into the ComDev site. > > Ross > > Relevant section from board report: > > We moved our code base from SVN to Git in mid-March. It has been a much > more difficult transition than expected. Three weeks later, folks are > still > confused about how to use Git as it has many options for performing tasks > that can have significant implications. Git's database model is not suited > for partial checkouts like SVN, making the management of our "whiteboard" > (a > playground for committers) much more difficult as you have to download the > entire whiteboard (currently 245MB) first. There is discussion of managing > the whiteboard on GitHub, but others feel that it doesn't conform to the > Apache way. > > The move to Git has slowed contributions from some committers as folks > aren't sure they have the time to learn to use Git and are afraid of using > the wrong options. Hopefully, the net benefit promised by the Git > supporters will eventually be realized. > > The move to Git has also broken our release and build scripts and we are in > the process of fixing them. We also need to get the Git mirrors working > again, as well as our CI implementation. > > > > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > -1 for using Apache Flex's bad experience, as a concrete example, as this might give the wrong perception about Git at Apache. +1 for documenting most used git and svn workflows used in Apache Projects, this might avoid similar problems in the future. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Feedback on Flex board report
On 26 April 2013 18:18, Alex Harui wrote: > It is true that there is less negativity about git every day in the Flex > community. I doubt we will go back to SVN. > > I'm not sure it is worth blogging it. The draft of the report is captured > on the dev@flex.a.o archives so it is public and searchable. > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui Hi Alex, I'm sorry to hear there were issues, but I can understand how git is very confusing at first (and sometimes later on too). I think broadly for CouchDB, it's been a success with very little real-world issues. I'd love to hear what didn't work and see if collectively we can put together some useful information that helps people & projects in future -- let me know where & how we could do this if you're interested. A+ Dave
Issues in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/projects/files.xml doap files
Another issue I have found in doap files: git repositories are listed as
they were SVN repositories
In http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/site/doap.rdf
rdf:resource="http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git"/>
rdf:resource="http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git"/>
should be:
rdf:resource="http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git"/>
rdf:resource="http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git"/>
And in http://isis.apache.org/doap_isis.rdf
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/isis.git"/>
rdf:resource="https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/isis/repo?p=isis.git;a=summary"/>
shoul be:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/isis.git"/>
rdf:resource="https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/isis/repo?p=isis.git;a=summary"/>
I believe the reason for this is the for
http://projects.apache.org/create.html which has just SVN
Is it useful to share this info on the list or am I going OT?
Davide
Il 23/04/2013 11:56, Davide Galletti ha scritto:
It turned out that no projects are missing a DOAP file; I have had
problems parsing
a couple of files; they seem not to be valid RDFs according to
http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
http://forrest.apache.org/doap.xml
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/site/trunk/uima-website/docs/doap/uima.rdf
Forrest does not contain any RDF statement
UIMA has a detailed asfext:PMC section which generates these errors:
Error: {E201} rdf:about not allowed as attribute here.[Line = 61,
Column = 34]
Error: {E202} Expecting XML start or end element(s). String data
"Apache UIMA" not allowed. Maybe there should be an
rdf:parseType='Literal' for embedding mixed XML content in RDF. Maybe
a striping error.[Line = 62, Column = 31]
Error: {E201} Multiple children of property element[Line = 63, Column
= 21]
Error: {E202} Expecting XML start or end element(s). String data
"Marshall Schor" not allowed. Maybe there should be an
rdf:parseType='Literal' for embedding mixed XML content in RDF. Maybe
a striping error.[Line = 65, Column = 36]
Error: {E201} Multiple children of property element[Line = 68, Column
= 23]
Error: {E202} Expecting XML start or end element(s). String data "The
mission of the Apache UIMA project is" not allowed. Maybe there should
be an rdf:parseType='Literal' for embedding mixed XML content in RDF.
Maybe a striping error.[Line = 68, Column = 64]
61:
62:Apache UIMA
63:
64:
65:Marshall Schor
66:
67:
68:The mission of the Apache UIMA project is
69: the creation and maintenance of
70: open-source software related to the analysis of unstructured
71: data, guided by the UIMA Oasis Standard.
72:
I thought it might be useful to share this info,
Cheers,
Davide
Il 15/01/2013 22:18, Ross Gardler ha scritto:
It would be excellent if you could encourage projects without a DOAP file
to create one. In fact all top level Apache projects should have one as per
our branding requirements [1] which state:
"All projects must provide a DOAP - Description Of A Project - file or
entry for both the project itself and all product releases that they make.
Follow the guidelines at to make a
DOAP file and register it. This will allow the ASF to best showcase all of
its projects and products in a variety of ways."
Compiling a list of those projects that do not yet have a DOAP file and
posting it here will be an excellent contribution to help us help them.
Note we provide a web form for Apache projects to create their DOAP at [2]
Ross
[1]http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html
[2]http://projects.apache.org/create.html
On 15 January 2013 09:30, Davide Galletti wrote:
Re: Feedback on Flex board report
On 4/26/13 2:41 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> I just wanted to thank you for the feedback you provided in your last
>> board report with respect to your experiences with moving to Git. This
>> kind of information is really useful to those in other projects...
>
> Note that the Flex team's view on Git as they reported it is fairly
> negative - this is totally understandable considering the history of
> how and when the move happened in that project, but other Apache
> projects are not seeing those issues at all.
>
> I suspect this negative view will evolve over time - either the
> project will revert to svn or they will be happy with Git after
> finding their groove. With this in mind, it would be better to post
> that information to http://blogs.apache.org/flex/ as something that's
> valid at this point in time ("where we are with Git today"), and maybe
> just add the essential, more durable information and links to the
> comdev website.
>
> -Bertrand
It is true that there is less negativity about git every day in the Flex
community. I doubt we will go back to SVN.
I'm not sure it is worth blogging it. The draft of the report is captured
on the dev@flex.a.o archives so it is public and searchable.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Feedback on Flex board report
Yes, good point Bertrand. Me being a glass half full kind of person I
read the original content as positive in the sense it provided
valuable forewarning for those planning on moving to Git. I was hoping
that we could express it as "this is what you should plan for if you
choose to switch to Git", we certainly don't want Git vs SVN content.
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
On 26 April 2013 10:41, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> I just wanted to thank you for the feedback you provided in your last
>> board report with respect to your experiences with moving to Git. This
>> kind of information is really useful to those in other projects...
>
> Note that the Flex team's view on Git as they reported it is fairly
> negative - this is totally understandable considering the history of
> how and when the move happened in that project, but other Apache
> projects are not seeing those issues at all.
>
> I suspect this negative view will evolve over time - either the
> project will revert to svn or they will be happy with Git after
> finding their groove. With this in mind, it would be better to post
> that information to http://blogs.apache.org/flex/ as something that's
> valid at this point in time ("where we are with Git today"), and maybe
> just add the essential, more durable information and links to the
> comdev website.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: Feedback on Flex board report
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I just wanted to thank you for the feedback you provided in your last
> board report with respect to your experiences with moving to Git. This
> kind of information is really useful to those in other projects...
Note that the Flex team's view on Git as they reported it is fairly
negative - this is totally understandable considering the history of
how and when the move happened in that project, but other Apache
projects are not seeing those issues at all.
I suspect this negative view will evolve over time - either the
project will revert to svn or they will be happy with Git after
finding their groove. With this in mind, it would be better to post
that information to http://blogs.apache.org/flex/ as something that's
valid at this point in time ("where we are with Git today"), and maybe
just add the essential, more durable information and links to the
comdev website.
-Bertrand
Feedback on Flex board report
I just wanted to thank you for the feedback you provided in your last board report with respect to your experiences with moving to Git. This kind of information is really useful to those in other projects. For the benefit of the archives (and ComDev PMC) I've copied the relevant section at the end of this mail. I'd really like to see this documented in the ComDev project. Perhaps in the section "For Commtters/PMCs". This could form the start of a page on best practices for version control which would link out to appropriate documentation on Git and SVN workflows, review processes etc. If anyone in the Flex community can write up your experiences as documentation on that site (it is editable by all committers) we'd really appreciate it.Note, the ComDev site is intended to "signpost" into more detailed documentation. The idea is not to be fully detailed but to provide a high level overview linking out to the details. To this end the content in the board report is at about the right level for the ComDev site, it just needs a little context padding for the ComDev site. If you have process documents on your own project pages please feel free to link to them as appropriate. If someone does find the time - thank you in advance. If not, then thank you for including it in the board report. Hopefully I or another ComDev memver will find the time to move it into the ComDev site. Ross Relevant section from board report: We moved our code base from SVN to Git in mid-March. It has been a much more difficult transition than expected. Three weeks later, folks are still confused about how to use Git as it has many options for performing tasks that can have significant implications. Git's database model is not suited for partial checkouts like SVN, making the management of our "whiteboard" (a playground for committers) much more difficult as you have to download the entire whiteboard (currently 245MB) first. There is discussion of managing the whiteboard on GitHub, but others feel that it doesn't conform to the Apache way. The move to Git has slowed contributions from some committers as folks aren't sure they have the time to learn to use Git and are afraid of using the wrong options. Hopefully, the net benefit promised by the Git supporters will eventually be realized. The move to Git has also broken our release and build scripts and we are in the process of fixing them. We also need to get the Git mirrors working again, as well as our CI implementation. Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
