buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexis Midon" <alexismi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Git forking for fun and profit
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:11 GMT
in the same way Apache has forked svn user versus non-svn users...
I think here we are talking about caving/forking/code drop, and it's not
really about whatever VCS tool we use.
One can work with git and push dozens of commit a day to apache svn, while
the other uses svn but commits a single huge patch every month.
It's all about development best practices.


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.
>
> 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
>

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