> > Third, why are we still using Subversion when we could be using Git > > [1]? > > Because we never talked about moving, I guess. :-)
Yes, I think that's the reason. Another point could be, that each contributor could use git-svn for accessing the official repository. It's not "the full Git power", but you have your "preferred" tool. > > Apache makes us keep the “official” repo on git.apache.org. That is > > lame, especially given the existence of CLAHub [2]; > > I disagree, I also think the authoritative source of Apache software > should be on systems maintained by the ASF. +1. Having one official repo, where you could rely on its IP-integrity is a big benefit, I think. > You can have the power of pull requests even when the authoritative > source is the ASF repo, the only thing you lack is the "merge" button > in the UI - but this really doesn't do anything you couldn't do with > the command line. Pull from the branch that makes up the PR and push > it to the ASF repo. I've even been told the Github PR system will > recognize the branch has been merged and close the PR as soon as the > github mirror catches up - but I haven't tried it so far. If we move to Git, we could tune the workflow here and test the possibilities ;) Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
