On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:45 AM Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: >...
> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. > We have some closer ties to Subversion by some > overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat > our very own dogfood here by using Subversion. > We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another > of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL. > Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should > check if all of the current active committers are fine > using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when > we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of > Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if > active committers would have issues with Github. > Today 0% of httpd developers can use those features of GitHub. Switching allows (say:) 90% of our developers, and potentially some downstream developers and users who are familiar with "how to work with upstream code providers, who use GitHub". Stick with 0%, or go with "more than 0%" ? As noted elsewhere, the GitHub Subversion support has been *sunsetted* and will go away. That should be kept in mind. People will not be able to stick to their svn client, whether readonly or read/write. JoeS notes elsewhere that the git support provided by Infra is strongly-linked to GitHub. From the Foundation's standpoint, the amount of utility is provided is vastly higher than any business risk associated with GitHub going dark or pulling their support for our Foundation. We have all our data, all the provenance, and everything we need, should that day ever arise. But it should not concern anybody in the community to create a reliance/dependency upon GitHub. Down-thread, Giovanni asks about security patch handling. We can continue to use repos/private/pmc/httpd/ for that. That area will not go away. If people want to go "all git", then Infra can provide projects with a single, private repository that would function similarly. IMO, I definitely think svn is a superior version control system to git. It is much more approachable and easy to use, compared to git. I helped to build svn, yet I use git daily; this isn't knee-jerk svn partisanship; svn is simply better/easier. But *GitHub* is a fabulous tool. I will take the inferior VCS in order to access the GitHub feature set. It is unfortunate that such a site never got built for svn, but it is what it is. GitHub > svn > git. Cheers, -g
