There is now a list to discuss this kind of things, infra-dev. I CC: it.
Please drop the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you answer.
El mar, 08-04-2008 a las 08:17 +0100, Danny Angus escribió:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If I remember correctl
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the policy was not to impose subversion, but to
> mandate end of life for CVS. If I remember correctly, this was due to
> security concerns, CVS requiring user accounts in the machine where the
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> > Why should this discussion be moved into a Apache-private realm, and
> > not just stay fully public, so that I can watch the proceedings? This
> > is an interesting discussion.
>
> Can
FWIW, I quite like both git and mercurial, both give me a better workflow
than subversion for a lot of things I work on. Offline commits, local
branches, and sane merging are *huge*. The approach to distributed repos is
also very nice for folks who do want to maintain a fork elsewhere (forking
isn'
[Apologies to incubator readers if you get this twice]
On 20/02/2008, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El mar, 19-02-2008 a las 23:06 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> > Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> >
> > > I find the decision to use one single SVN repo for the entire
> > > organization's
On 20/02/2008, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El mar, 19-02-2008 a las 23:06 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> > Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> >
> > > I find the decision to use one single SVN repo for the entire
> > > organization's source pretty strange. I'd believe that one repo
> > > f
Hi,
On 2/20/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is the wrong forum. What we've said here is that there won't be any
> > > deviation from the ASF infrastructure for source control; changing ASF
> > > infrastructure is out of scope for the Incubator.
>
> > I already tried to
El mar, 19-02-2008 a las 23:06 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> > I find the decision to use one single SVN repo for the entire
> > organization's source pretty strange. I'd believe that one repo
> > for every TLP
>
> Been there, done that, have the scars.
>
Possib
Santiago Gala wrote:
> > > - publishing lots of repositories helps surfacing patches that are
> > > currently hidden until ready for sending/committing
> > The last one is almost antithetical to how we want people to work.
> Can you elaborate on how is publishing what currently is hidden
> "anti
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> I find the decision to use one single SVN repo for the entire
> organization's source pretty strange. I'd believe that one repo
> for every TLP
Been there, done that, have the scars.
> The only downside I see is a slight bit more configuration management
Don't be so bli
El mar, 19-02-2008 a las 22:29 +0100, Endre Stølsvik escribió:
> Upayavira wrote:
> > Justin put it very well in a related thread elsewhere (permission
> > sought):
>
> [ CHOP interesting adamant view from Justin ]
> (Where is "elsewhere", btw?)
>
the discussion spread to a private list outside
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 22:29 +0100, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
> > Justin put it very well in a related thread elsewhere (permission
> > sought):
>
> [ CHOP interesting adamant view from Justin ]
> (Where is "elsewhere", btw?)
Apache has a number of "internal" lists on which members
Upayavira wrote:
Justin put it very well in a related thread elsewhere (permission
sought):
[ CHOP interesting adamant view from Justin ]
(Where is "elsewhere", btw?)
What I find strange in all this is the view that ALL projects at Apache
would have to change to OtherSCM if one project would
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 11:51 +0100, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2008 10:48 AM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> outright FUD? Sorry but I don't think there is Fear, Uncertainty or
> >> Doubt in this thread. There are several testimonies of good exper
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
Why should this discussion be moved into a Apache-private realm, and
not just stay fully public, so that I can watch the proceedings? This
is an interesting discussion.
Can we please keep the Incubator ML focused ???
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 10:48 AM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
outright FUD? Sorry but I don't think there is Fear, Uncertainty or
Doubt in this thread. There are several testimonies of good experiences
I feel there has been lots of FUD and if you don't realize tha
Paul Querna wrote:
Santiago Gala wrote:
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 19:02 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
No. This is the wrong forum. What we've said here is that there
won't be any deviation from the ASF infrastructure for source
control; changing ASF infrastructure is out of scope for the I
On Feb 18, 2008 10:48 AM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> outright FUD? Sorry but I don't think there is Fear, Uncertainty or
> Doubt in this thread. There are several testimonies of good experiences
I feel there has been lots of FUD and if you don't realize that, then
I recommend takin
On Feb 18, 2008 1:01 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the last time i tried SVK, changes would be needed to SVK before it
> could work with a repository as big as apache
FWIW, the partial svnsync changes that SVK would need are present in
1.5. I don't know if the SVK communi
On Feb 18, 2008 2:08 PM, Daniel S. Haischt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems like people weren't interested in SVK but solely in Git. Otherwise
> this thread would have come to an end pretty soon without the need of
> all the FUD cause I suggested/asked to use SVK some days ago already.
the last
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
in a private list does not accord with *our way of
working*, I think. And I don't think there is any need to use a
private, unarchived list for discussions on infrastructure
improvements.
infrastructure is open to all committers.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
in a private list does not accord with *our way of
working*, I think. And I don't think there is any need to use a
private, unarchived list for discussions on infrastructure
improvements.
infrastructure is open to all committers.
On Monday 18 February 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
> > in a private list does not accord with *our way of
> > working*, I think. And I don't think there is any need to use a
> > private, unarchived list for discussions on infrastructure
> > improvements.
>
> infrastructure is open to all committers.
>
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 17:24 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz escribió:
> On Feb 17, 2008 3:34 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also: you keep a long term branch for doing some refactoring, and you
> > fix small bugs both in HEAD and in a release branch, merging and
> > backporting/forwa
Santiago Gala wrote:
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 19:02 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
No. This is the wrong forum. What we've said here is that there won't be any
deviation from the ASF infrastructure for source control; changing ASF
infrastructure is out of scope for the Incubator.
I alrea
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 19:02 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> Santiago Gala wrote:
> > I think git-svn abuses the server a lot, as the subversion server is not
> > designed for copying of the whole history.
>
> AFAICS, that's an issue for the Infrastructure Team to address, not the
> Incuba
Seems like people weren't interested in SVK but solely in Git. Otherwise
this thread would have come to an end pretty soon without the need of
all the FUD cause I suggested/asked to use SVK some days ago already.
It doesn't figure why infrastructure stuff needs to be discussed in
such a intensity
> Use case: work on apache project while on plane
> ---
> * export list of jiras of your favorite ASF project into spreadsheet
> * sync project repo to your laptop
> * get on a plane for 14 hours
> * slave away at the bug list, fixing a bunch
On 2/17/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But visibility of the content and process very much IS part of "the Apache
> Way."
>
> Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some where
> people are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run counter to ASF
> principl
On Feb 17, 2008 3:34 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also: you keep a long term branch for doing some refactoring, and you
> fix small bugs both in HEAD and in a release branch, merging and
> backporting/forwardporting as you go. Again, something like git makes
> the work simpler and
Leo Simons wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some
> > where people are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run
> > counter to ASF principles.
> Let me fix that [...]
Fine, but again, the Incubator isn't where ASF Infrastructure de
Santiago Gala wrote:
> I think git-svn abuses the server a lot, as the subversion server is not
> designed for copying of the whole history.
AFAICS, that's an issue for the Infrastructure Team to address, not the
Incubator.
> > Dw wrote:
> > > I am a bit lost here as well -- what does GiT add t
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 19:12 +0100, Leo Simons escribió:
> On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some
> > where people are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run
> > counter to ASF principles.
>
> Let me fix
El dom, 17-02-2008 a las 10:58 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > I understand that GiT can be used locally as a layer on top of SVN.
> > > I believe this gives you most of the perceived benefits of GiT
> > > locally without the need for a
On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some
where people are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run
counter to ASF principles.
Let me fix that:
Use case: work on apache project while on plane
-
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > I understand that GiT can be used locally as a layer on top of SVN.
> > I believe this gives you most of the perceived benefits of GiT
> > locally without the need for a project itself to switch to GiT.
The issue isn't git as an SVN client. N
On Feb 17, 2008 7:51 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But visibility of the content and process very much IS part of "the Apache
> Way."
>
> Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some where people
> are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run counter to A
Santiago Gala wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> > No project was allowed to stay with CVS. No project will be allowed to
> > use another source control system unless it is adopted at the ASF
> > level. Source code is a critical, shared, public resource maintained
> > by the Foundation, not so
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that GiT can be used locally as a layer on top of SVN. I
> believe this gives you most of the perceived benefits of GiT locally
> without the need for a project itself to switch to GiT.
>
> Now, I've never
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 14:45 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann escribió:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Aye, and this is also the reason why it potentially conflicts with
> > the meritocratic model of the ASF; furthermore there are also legal
> > hurdles
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 14:32 +0100, Erik Abele escribió:
> On 14.02.2008, at 14:14, Santiago Gala wrote:
>
> > ...
> > The typical workflow in distributed scm is that authoritative
> > repositories pull (as requested and after review) from non-official
> > ones, so typically security is easier:
Santiago Gala wrote:
I'd say that if a project wants to have a distributed scm and makes a
reasonable case of the reasons, they would ask for it to infrastructure.
If infrastructure denies it and the project does not accept the
reasoning or how it is exposed, we have a conflict. If there is a
con
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aye, and this is also the reason why it potentially conflicts with
> the meritocratic model of the ASF; furthermore there are also legal
> hurdles to cross etc.
>
> In the end I think it's simply too early to discuss all
On 14.02.2008, at 14:14, Santiago Gala wrote:
...
The typical workflow in distributed scm is that authoritative
repositories pull (as requested and after review) from non-official
ones, so typically security is easier: no longer lots of people with
write access, but only a handful, taking change
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 10:52 +, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
> Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> >> No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
> >> Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
> >> imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of disc
would SVK be an option? This would allow to re-use the already existing SVN
infrastracture.
No need for changes to the ASF infrastructure...
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 12:37 +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik escribió:
>
> > O
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 12:37 +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik escribió:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> >>> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> > git could be an issue.
> Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> >>> Leo alr
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of discussion.
I would assume though that if there is enough interest among the
community,
El mié, 13-02-2008 a las 18:28 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> > J Aaron Farr wrote:
> >>> git could be an issue.
> > > Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> > Leo already gave a decent explanation.
> > Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
> > 1) infrastructu
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2)
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2) cultural bias
Only the first one is marginally c
No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of discussion.
I would assume though that if there is enough interest among the
community, the subject of supp
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>> git could be an issue.
> > Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> Leo already gave a decent explanation.
> Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
> 1) infrastructure support
> 2) cultural bias
Only the first one is marginally correct, IMO.
53 matches
Mail list logo
