On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:47:05 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
I don't understand why SCM isn't the biggest problem causes people
to veto this change.
There is no proof that more contributors will suddenly appear just
because the tool has changed.
As people noted, a contributor can fairly easily
big +1 for the the move from me (I guess that does not come as a surprise)
SCM isn't the biggest problem is certainly true but given my experience I
am inclined to say it will help.
But with so many hesitant people I think we need a good plan on how it will
look like.
We especially need to check
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:37:03 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
There is no proof that more contributors will suddenly appear just
because the tool has changed.
The numbers James brought tell a different story.
Maybe just a very specific indicator and not scientific - but so is
your
claim that it
Maybe for tiny fixes it's that easy - for longer contribution where you
follow development it's not.
How often does that happen (within Commons)?
Not often enough because then we would have more people working on commons
;)
How often will a new contributor embark in a long rewrite? [And
On Oct 10, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can a release guy detail what is painful and why we cant release with a
script?
That is what I have always ended up doing. The problems start when we try to
get everything to work for all components
On Oct 11, 2013, at 6:37 AM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
There is no proof that more contributors will suddenly appear just
because the tool has changed.
The numbers James brought tell a different story.
Maybe just a very specific indicator and not scientific - but so is your
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
Question for James - how many new committers did they get? Random drive by
pull requests won't help us. We already get more patches than we can
evaluate and apply in a timely fashion. The key question is will the
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote:
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
For me commons looks like a big sandbox where rules
On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:23 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
Question for James - how many new committers did they get? Random drive by
pull requests won't help us. We already get more patches
Well, we've had some lengthy discussions about this. I think there is
at least enough interest to put it up to a vote. I'll start the
thread here shortly. We can continue the discussion on this thread so
it doesn't get fragmented.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Carman
Before I vote on this is someone volunteering to do the work? I assume Infra
will take care of the actual move, but there are still web site links that have
to be changed.
Ralph
On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:38 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Well, we've had some lengthy
Those who vote +1 (contrast with +0) are beholden to assist where needed.
:|
Matt
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Before I vote on this is someone volunteering to do the work? I assume
Infra will take care of the actual move, but there are
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
I would suggest that a lack of releases is a much greater barrier. Folks
who contribute patches do so because they want to see them in a release.
If there are no releases (and looking back for the past 6 months there
have
On 10/10/2013 23:05, James Carman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
I would suggest that a lack of releases is a much greater barrier. Folks
who contribute patches do so because they want to see them in a release.
If there are no releases (and looking
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
I disagree. We don't have releases because of an overly complex release
process. Figuring out how to do a Pool 2 release is on my TODO list.
Having seen the pain others new to the Commons release process have gone
though,
On Oct 10, 2013, at 18:13, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 10/10/2013 23:05, James Carman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
I would suggest that a lack of releases is a much greater barrier. Folks
who contribute patches do so because they want
Can a release guy detail what is painful and why we cant release with a
script? Git or svn are scriptable to be auto so the scm is clearly not the
release issue (maybe not fashion but not blocking)
Le 11 oct. 2013 01:24, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Oct 10, 2013, at 18:13,
I dont think it vetoes it, it is just not linked
Le 11 oct. 2013 07:47, Benedikt Ritter benerit...@gmail.com a écrit :
I don't understand why SCM isn't the biggest problem causes people to
veto this change.
Send from my mobile device
Am 11.10.2013 um 06:55 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
I don't think it is quite that simple. I would still expect a Jira issue to be
created. Some projects use ReviewBoard or other tools and require a code
review (those are mostly RTC projects). So just because Git helps with part of
the problem it doesn't mean you don't have to become familiar
On 8 Oct 2013, at 6:53, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
Not sure svn is the issue. What makes quality and which rules are
mandatory
is more important IMO.
If you want to attract a new generation it is important. Would you
contribute to a CVS project?
I would if you need it urgently for work.
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
For me commons looks like a big sandbox where rules are more important than
features (btw maven is about the same today). From my
Send from my mobile device
Am 08.10.2013 um 09:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
For me commons looks like
Le 08/10/2013 04:10, James Carman a écrit :
I suppose we'd have a separate repo for each component? What about
proper vs. sandbox? How would we accommodate that paradigm? Has
anyone else already gone through this thought process?
Regarding the sandbox vs proper issue, I don't think this
Hi all,
Le 2013-10-08 09:10, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
I don't fully agree. The infra is also important (not more or less than
2013/10/8 luc l...@spaceroots.org
Hi all,
Le 2013-10-08 09:10, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
I don't fully agree. The infra is
Le 08/10/2013 10:02, luc a écrit :
This would be *much* easier than attaching patches to JIRA.
There is an open issue though, when a contributor attaches a patch to
JIRA it leaves a proof that he allowed the ASF to include his code.
Merging directly from Github isn't enough from a legal
On 08/10/2013 09:30, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 08/10/2013 10:02, luc a écrit :
This would be *much* easier than attaching patches to JIRA.
There is an open issue though, when a contributor attaches a patch to
JIRA it leaves a proof that he allowed the ASF to include his code.
Merging
I think all your points are important but are not exclusive.
I totally agree with Romain, the usage and features are extremely important
and we should move on (following Java version, etc…) but the simpler
someone can contribute, the faster we'll go.
I think, as Luc said, that git is a big plus
everybody seems ok for git, maybe time to throw a vote and go to next
topics ;)
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau https://twitter.com/rmannibucau*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github:
Le 08/10/2013 10:38, Xavier Detant a écrit :
I think, as Luc said, that git is a big plus for that. Let's say you're a
lambda person, you just use commons for work and found a bug you need to
fix for your app. On svn, you'll fix it, use it in your app, but you will
not share it, may be not
2013/10/8 Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org
I don't think using SVN is a barrier to private modifications like this.
People just fork the mirror on Github, or import the code with git-svn.
I didn't said it was. Of course you'll do your private change, but you
won't share it easily (not as
: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Git...
Hi all,
Le 2013-10-08 09:10, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are
simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra
around a project.
I
On 8 Oct 2013, at 11:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
just an habit. svn diff attach diff to a jira is as easy/hard as
git
push + PR.
Tools like GitHub succeed because not everybody agrees with you.
svn/diff is stoneage to some. git/pr is the future for them. Maybe you
are right about the
I think the problem we have right now is perception. We look like
dinosaurs. A lot of the current contributions we receive come in as
pull requests from Github. If we want to attract new contributions,
we need to make it easier for folks to contribute.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Romain
All,
If we did want to move to Git, we'd probably have to figure out how
we'd manage our workflow (couldn't think of a better word). I
suppose we'd have a separate repo for each component? What about
proper vs. sandbox? How would we accommodate that paradigm? Has
anyone else already gone
Whatever workflow we came up with, if we moved to Git I'd like to see
Gerritt (https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/) used for code review.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
All,
If we did want to move to Git, we'd probably have to figure out how
we'd
Hi
Not sure svn is the issue. What makes quality and which rules are mandatory
is more important IMO.
Following oracle java version (with a single one late - java 6 when java 7
is the current one) is one key i think.
Another one would be to remove project from main sources/proper when nobody
In my experience quality is greatly enhanced by code review. Whatever
we can do to have gerrit-style code review, let's do that IMO.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Not sure svn is the issue. What makes quality and which rules are mandatory
My point was just the quality is not the issue of commons so not the first
thing to do/move
Le 8 oct. 2013 07:05, James Ring s...@jdns.org a écrit :
In my experience quality is greatly enhanced by code review. Whatever
we can do to have gerrit-style code review, let's do that IMO.
On Mon, Oct
39 matches
Mail list logo
