On 18 September 2014 10:38, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/18/2014 10:07 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > >> On 17 September 2014 09:25, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 09/16/2014 05:35 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I mentioned this briefly in a previous thread, and have decided just to >>>> call a vote on the subject. I would like to migrate the repo for the new >>>> JMS client work to use Git rather than Subversion. >>>> >>>> This wont affect the rest of the Qpid codebase, though it could be >>>> viewed >>>> as a test for any such move in future. Only the bits in the following >>>> subtree are under consideration for migation at this time: >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/jms/ >>>> >>>> I believe it would make things easier for those of us currently working >>>> on >>>> it, and ease future usage of things like the Github integration we >>>> can/should have Apache infra enable. For anyone still wanting to use a >>>> Subversion client to check things out, there will still be an option >>>> there >>>> as e.g. Github repos can also be checked out with svn clients, and >>>> Apache >>>> mirror things to Github. >>>> >>>> Please cast your votes. Even if you don't intend to work on the code in >>>> question, please vote or at least contribute your thoughts to any >>>> discussion that pops up. I will tally the votes after this point on >>>> Friday, >>>> i.e. 72hrs. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm in favour of those doing the work deciding what suits them best. Git >>> is now well enough established that switching isn't in any real sense >>> raising a barrier to new contributors. >>> >>> >>> Just to be certain, is your reply to be taken as +1 vote Gordon? >> > > It's more in the category of 'contributing my thoughts' :-)
Thats actually what I thought, just wanted to confirm before the final tally. > I'm not going to be immediately involved, so I feel odd voting on it and > since I don't think you are short of votes, I'm just saying explicitly that > what you decide is alright with me. (as opposed to being silent which might > be interpreted differently) > Ok. Additional votes are welcome though ;)
