Perhaps a better characterization of what is being proposed here would be, 1) Optionally using Git to manage your personal work; this is mostly using Git as a better Subversion locally where I can work on several things at once without getting everything mixed up;
2) Keep using the Apache SVN as _the_ central repository; any community effort that requires or would benefit from sharing should go into the Apache SVN (including branching), early and often. However #2 restricts most of the action to committers. Git opens the door to having non-committers involved in a way that's more dynamic than with Jira patches. It does not replace Jira patches but rather allows easier interactions prior and during the patch review process. As far as I understand it, I don't think the existing contribution process changes much except that we have better tooling to support it. I see that Assaf just sent another email about this so I'll pause here. alex On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Martijn Dashorst < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/2/08, Alexis Midon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > in the same way Apache has forked svn user versus non-svn users... > > Apache hasn't forked svn users from non-svn users. At least, I don't > know of any Apache committer that doesn't use or has svn. I don't have > git installed, so I can't easily join or share the fun of buildr (not > that I'm planning) > > The point I am curious about is are you going to use branches in svn > or not? Branches provide *the* way to communicate with the larger > community. Sticking with git will shut out the non-git users. If you > don't use the svn repo to communicate between core devs, then I think > you are going outside the established ASF rules of engagement. > > Martijn > > -- > 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 >
