Re: [Thrift] Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 17:21 -0800, David Reiss wrote: > Thanks for the explanations. Maybe it is too early for me to start > evangelizing, but let me know if either of these factors makes a difference. > > 1/ I don't think we would be putting any load on the Apache infrastructure > team. As Matthieu said, it would take about five minutes for one of us to > set > up the server. > > 2/ It would be almost as easy to mirror the master branch of the repository > into Subversion, so there is no reason the latest and greatest Thrift code > could not be available with the rest of the Apache products. As to evangelising, I'd say, come along, enter the world of the ASF, join its infrastructure list, help out, get to know us, come to ApacheCons and meet us (if you can). Evangelising will be much easier then! As to using git, I would personally have no problem with a developer (or a group of developers) chosing to use git on top of SVN (assuming it does not put undue load on our SVN servers, like some tools do). I would probably feel uncomfortable with a situation where all devs were _required_ to use git in order to participate in the project, as that would effectively make it a core part of the project. So (a) so long as all code resides in SVN and (b) no-one is required to use git, nor prejudiced against for not using it, I would not have any problems. Regards, Upayavira > Matthieu Riou wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2008 4:48 PM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > Said differently, I would love to use Bazaar at the ASF. Some others would > > like Mercurial. You'd like Git. I bet we could even find a couple of people > > who'd like to get back to CVS. > > > > Also it would take me 5mn to setup a Bazaar repository on my machine and > > share it with friends. In the context of the foundation (where the current > > svn revision is 617723) it would probably take weeks to get something that > > would fly, plus years of maintenance behind. > > > > Cheers, > > Matthieu > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > ___ > Thrift mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.pub.facebook.com/mailman/listinfo/thrift - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [Thrift] Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift
Thanks for the explanations. Maybe it is too early for me to start evangelizing, but let me know if either of these factors makes a difference. 1/ I don't think we would be putting any load on the Apache infrastructure team. As Matthieu said, it would take about five minutes for one of us to set up the server. 2/ It would be almost as easy to mirror the master branch of the repository into Subversion, so there is no reason the latest and greatest Thrift code could not be available with the rest of the Apache products. Thanks for your consideration! --David Matthieu Riou wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 4:48 PM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > +1 Said differently, I would love to use Bazaar at the ASF. Some others would like Mercurial. You'd like Git. I bet we could even find a couple of people who'd like to get back to CVS. Also it would take me 5mn to setup a Bazaar repository on my machine and share it with friends. In the context of the foundation (where the current svn revision is 617723) it would probably take weeks to get something that would fly, plus years of maintenance behind. Cheers, Matthieu > > 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] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Thrift] Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift
On Feb 1, 2008 4:48 PM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > +1 Said differently, I would love to use Bazaar at the ASF. Some others would like Mercurial. You'd like Git. I bet we could even find a couple of people who'd like to get back to CVS. Also it would take me 5mn to setup a Bazaar repository on my machine and share it with friends. In the context of the foundation (where the current svn revision is 617723) it would probably take weeks to get something that would fly, plus years of maintenance behind. Cheers, Matthieu > > 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] > >
Re: [Thrift] Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift
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]
