commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:06:27 GMT
On 10/13/13 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> Phil,
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> I got this information from:
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.

As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
seeing if we can actually get consensus.  I stand by my statement
above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.

Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
standardization are we going to force on components.  My view is
less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
at once or even ever done uniformly.

Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
good thing to spend time on.  I just don't think its fair to those
who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
move everything.


> Thanks,
> James
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>> Phil
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>> Thank you,
>>> James
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about
the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to
Git.  I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera:
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message