Welcome back from lurk-mode! :-) I think this is an interesting issue beyond just Git vs SVN and how the project is hosted. As Assaf said, the Git repository is still synced to the SVN (and vice versa), so there isn't any real side-stepping going on. In fact, committers could use SVN directly if they so choose (without any negative impact on an SVN-based workflow), it's merely personal taste which drives everyone to Git. The interesting point though is that while in incubation, Vic's GitHub repo really became the "unofficially canonical" one. While Buildr's site did point everyone to the SVN *first*, the culture was such that Git was really the convention/standard across the board. That's not to say that SVN was discouraged in any way, it just wasn't used (except as the main store-point once commits were made).
The larger issue here is what does it mean to be the "primary" source when all sources give the same artifacts? Is it the repository officially recommended by the project? Is it the repository decided by the "wisdom of the masses" in the development team? As solutions like Git, Mercurial and Bazaar catch on, I think we're going to see more and more projects raising this issue: what does it mean to have multiple "canonical" sources and when does it really cause problems? Daniel On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Assaf Arkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm with you in using Github as the main repository: > > As an ASF Member I must protest against the direction that you are > taking this project. GitHub can not be used as the main repository for > any ASF Project. The canonical resource for Apache project's code must > be hosted on Apache hardware. Since the only repository that is > supported by Infrastructure is SVN, you'll have to maintain the > primary source for your project *in* SVN. Not somewhere else, not > bypassing ASF authorizations, not bypassing Apache policy. > > Martijn >
