On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On May 2, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Assaf Arkin wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> > Assuming this happens, how do you plan on addressing the issue > if and when Buildr graduates? Will you be proposing either (1) > the Buildr alone is using a process and flow that no other > ASF project is using or (2) that it completely dies when the > project goes TLP. > > I'm assuming you can see the issues with either scenario... > > If I understand it correctly, aside from various mechanical issues (licensing, releases, etc), graduation happens when we have a stronger community of participation that's no longer dependent on so few committers. We'll reach graduation if we have a process that's backed by our community, not one that works against it, so I don't see a need to revert the process post graduation. Today we have three committers who work with Git daily, and I'm speculating if we put it up for vote, they would be in favor of a workflow that takes advantage of Git and uses it responsibly. We have multi-lingual support since 1.3, but most of the development is done in Ruby, so we have to consider who we're attracting: most likely developers who are open to or interested in working with Ruby, and not just for Buildr. The Ruby world is now in the beginning of the Big Shift to Git. Three of our dependencies are already there. That makes us different from other Apache projects, we're more predisposed to use Git elsewhere. So what I'm proposing is that we adapt a workflow and see what happens. If it works in the best interest of the community, it will thrive and we can carry it to graduation and beyond. I don't see a reason to stop if it bring in more developers who are comfortable with that workflow, find that it makes life easier, and use it to collaborate with others in our immediate open-source circle. And by the looks of it, we won't be the only TLP at Apache using Git, and definitely not the first project where work is happening on Git. If it doesn't work, we'll dial it back before graduation, in order to reach graduation. The risk as I see it is delayed graduation, the benefit, if I'm right about it, we'll last past graduation. I think we have more to gain from using Git responsibly. Assaf
