Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Joe Schaefer]

I wish more Apache projects reach maintenance mode as part of their maturity 
model.  It’s good to complete your mission instead of always digging deeper 
holes.

Joe Schaefer, Ph.D

+1 (954) 253-3732
SunStar Systems, Inc.
Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki


From: Greg Stein 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:59:24 PM
To: Stefan Sperling 
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:18 AM Stefan Sperling 
mailto:s...@apache.org>> wrote:
>...
I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated contributors
arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
on svn.apache.org, are programmers, might have itches to 
scratch, already have
commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
There certainly have been some, but relatively few.

IMO, it is because Subversion is successful.

It just works. Zero friction. It doesn't cause developers a headache or an 
"itch to scratch".

One doesn't think to improve their dishwasher. It just works. Why change your 
hammer? It works.

I believe that Subversion hit its goal, and then some. I believe that is why 
the *use* of Subversion did not lead to a desire to work/fix/change Subversion.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Greg Stein]

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:18 AM Stefan Sperling  wrote:
>...

> I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated
> contributors
> arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
> on svn.apache.org, are programmers, might have itches to scratch, already
> have
> commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
> across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
> It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
> There certainly have been some, but relatively few.
>

IMO, it is because Subversion is successful.

It just works. Zero friction. It doesn't cause developers a headache or an
"itch to scratch".

One doesn't think to improve their dishwasher. It just works. Why change
your hammer? It works.

I believe that Subversion hit its goal, and then some. I believe that is
why the *use* of Subversion did not lead to a desire to work/fix/change
Subversion.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Roy T. Fielding]

> On May 4, 2023, at 1:34 AM, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
> 
> [X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

I trust subversion more as a vcs, but that is outweighed by the
convenience of Github's PR and issue management. Their integration is
far too complete to consider retaining bugzilla as well, except as a
source for legacy issues.

Roy

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 11:11:40PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
> The ASF is completely confident in svn, and basically 99% of our corporate
> records, and some of our key workflows (eg. account requests, TLP
> graduation, ICLA recording) is all based on Apache Subversion. Also a fact.
> And zero plans to change that. Git is not envisioned to replace any of that.
> 
> Your implication that the Foundation was somehow required to grow the svn
> community is misplaced. That is not its purpose. The Apache Subversion
> community is responsible for growing itself. In 2011, the Board of
> Directors specifically declined to assist a TLP with its community (*way*
> larger than svn) because that is not the purpose of the Foundation. We do
> not want some people "over there" on the Foundation/administrative side
> interfering with the technical operation, and the community dynamics of one
> of the communities. Or, even worse, to *pick* which communities get
> assistance, while others do not. No winners. No losers. (clearly: I am
> upset by your implication that you've been let down; the true answer is
> missing a step on the Foundation's role)

Thanks for writing this up, Greg. Point taken. I did not mean to imply
that the foundation was somehow responsible for adding developers to the
project.

I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated contributors
arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
on svn.apache.org, are programmers, might have itches to scratch, already have
commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
There certainly have been some, but relatively few.
Of course, it's not the foundation's job to make that happen. It's up to
the individuals in the larger ASF community to make a decision whether
to get involved.

> As Daniel notes else-thread, the suggestion is not git vs. svn. It is
> entirely about "Do we want the tools offered by GitHub, to be made
> available to the Apache HTTPD community?"

Yep, that is very clear.
And there is the network effect which makes GitHub a popular platform
in its own right.

> I'm an svn partisan, but I also appreciate GitHub for its utility. I
> voted +1 to move, for that reason only. Hands-down, I'd -1 a move to git.
> It was only GitHub that changed my opinion on this issue.

I'll abstain since I don't contribute much to HTTPD anymore and probably
won't find the time to do so in the foreseeable future. I'll run with
whatever gets decided by the community.

Cheers,
Stefan