buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Git forking for fun and profit
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 19:14:19 GMT
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is just one thing that bugs me. By moving main development off
> of svn into git-svn, you limit the visibility of development for
> non-git users, effectively forcing everyone that wants to join the
> project to us git-svn. How else will they be able to work on a branch,
> or see your code? The only "development" that is visible are the
> commits done on trunk.
>
> Effectively you have forked your community into git users versus non-git
> users.


The reason we're using git-svn is precisely because we're working against
SVN.  So if you use an SVN client, you get to check the code from SVN.  If
you like git-svn better (I do), you get to check it from SVN as well, just
work with a different client.  There are reasons for, and reasons against,
using git-svn, but either way you're checking out the same code base.

Separately we'll also provide one Git mirror that synchronizes with SVN,
which you can use to git pull instead of git svn pull.  For people just
interested in checking the code, not too worried that it may lag behind SVN,
that's an available option.  But it doesn't move the work off SVN, simply
mirrors it in another repository.


For people who can't work against SVN, i.e. non-commiters, there are two
options:
1.  Do whatever you like, which is the current common practice.
2.  Use Git to share what you're working on with everyone else.

I strongly recommend using Git because it gives more people visibility and a
chance to participate.  It also helps me, as committer, to see that progress
rather than wait for a patch to land in JIRA.  It's easier to do back &
forth work before merging the patch.

It's absolutely true that people who use SVN would limited visiblity into
that.  People who use SVN already don't have visiblity into anything that
happens in other people's working copy.  So we're not taking anything away.

But we are going to create a new class of participation for people who use
Git that's simply not possible to do with SVN.  And we want to make sure
that one happens the right way, rather than ignoring it.




As for committers doing long term work on Git forks instead of SVN branches,
we don't have an answer for that yet.  It wasn't up on the table.  My
success rate with SVN branches so far has been zero, so that's something I
think we should talk about, but hasn't been proposed yet.

I intentionally want to keep those two discussions separate, because they
affect the community in different ways.  Only thing I pointed to so far is
how we can use Git as an SVN mirror, and for things SVN doesn't accomodate
for, which doesn't diminish what SVN users have access to.

Moving work traditionally done with SVN to Git is a separate discussion.

Assaf


>
>
> Martijn
>
> On 5/2/08, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > For what it's worth, my takeaways from this thread are,
> >  >
> >  > 1) Buildr developers want to lower the barrier to contribution and
> >  > participation -- many think using Git can help and therefore are ready
> to
> >  > support it use.
> >  >
> >  > 2) Many people are concerned that using distributed SCM tools may lead
> to
> >  > lesser community participation because it makes caving/forking easier
> -- or
> >  > more generally it could lead to a more fragmented community
> >  >
> >  > Both of these arguments have merit and I don't believe there's a
> definitive
> >  > indication as to which outcome is most likely.   This being said,
> >  >
> >  > 3) Buildr developers believe using Git is compatible with the Apache
> Way,
> >  > and acknowledge the concerns and risks of fragmentation;  we believe
> the
> >  > risks can be mitigated by clearly articulating that the focus of the
> >  > project
> >  > lies within Apache and that dSCM is a convenience, not a substitute
> for
> >  > community participation. With great power comes increased
> responsibility.
> >  >
> >  > 4) Buildr developers want the freedom to experiment with dSCM and
> would
> >  > prefer to do so with the concent of the incubator PMC.  We believe the
> >  > incubator is a good place to run such experiment and we're willing to
> >  > accept
> >  > the guidance and mentoring of the IPMC to reach both objectives:
> increased
> >  > participation and stronger community.   We assume the risk that it
> might
> >  > affect the time and outcome for graduation, should the experiment
> fail, but
> >  > we're convinced that we can make it happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree, but I want to clarify a couple of points:
> >
> >  Git is presently a choice, and we wont' be running off SVN, until Apache
> >  infrastructure switches to Git.  It's an option available to anyone, and
> >  they can choose to use it any way they want.
> >
> >  We can warn people of the potential for misuse, but we can't stop them
> from
> >  using Git.  Alternatively, we can warn people of the potential for
> misuse,
> >  and provide a way to use it responsibly, turning it into a benefit.  And
> I
> >  articulated some of the ways in which Git could work better than SVN.
> >
> >  So it's about the way we make it easier on everyone to use Git
> responsibly,
> >  so that -- not misuse -- becomes the default path and the one everybody
> can
> >  follow by example.
> >
> >
> >  Assaf
> >
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > I hope I'm not misrepresenting anything or anybody here;  please
> correct me
> >  > if you feel your opinion has not been represented here.
> >  >
> >  > alex
> >  >
> >  > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com>
> >  > wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I don't want to reactivate this thread.  I just want to make sure
> you
> >  > > > understood one point by repharasing it.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > I think we should keep this thread open as long as we need to.
>  We're
> >  > > talking about community ownership here, and we have to make sure we
> keep
> >  > > doing the right thing.
> >  > >
> >  > > Assaf
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > If we 'fear' creating block commits, it is simply because we know
> what
> >  > > > it give.  When a commit is too big it is impossible to review and
> it
> >  > > > becomes more difficult to have a community 'ownership' of the
> code.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > (Now, I didn't say that you are making too big changes...  I just
> say
> >  > > > that it could happen...)
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I will now follow Martijn and lurking again also.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > --
> >  > > > Gilles Scokart
> >  > > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  CTO, Intalio
> >  http://www.intalio.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>



-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message