On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:59 AM Michal Karm <michal.baba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/2019 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:13 AM Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com > > <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have > seen an > > > increase in contributions and contributors... > > > > > > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ > the > > > foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to > have a > > > discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the > next 25 > > > years of this project :) > > > > Can we use Travis CI as well? If so I am +1 on moving to github, > being > > able to easily configure a consistent CI across branches and PRs > will be > > a major improvement over the status quo. (I have no idea how > buildbot > > works or how to improve it and it's unusuable before commits) > > > > > > Travis CI is possible *today* ... since the svn commits are replicated > over to > > github, Travis can pick them up and run tests. Just file an INFRA ticket > to > > enable it. > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > Hi Greg, > > That does not cover Joe's note "...and PRs...". I understand. Just noting that Travis is (already) possible, even if PR handling/testing/merging is uneven. Basically having a transparent, > dead simple set of gate smoke tests > on a handful of major platforms and config flavours/layouts. Linux and > Windows > can be used in this capacity for free (as in free beer). > > It makes almost no sense unless all committers agree that all code commits > pass > through PR gate, i.e. > no direct commits. > Nope. Won't happen. The httpd project has been "commit-then-review" for over two decades. "Must past tests before merge" is antithetical, and I cannot possibly imagine this community changing to that position. >... > Reading the email thread, I get the vibe that the community would have to > put out the SVN vs. Git flame first though :) > FUD. That is not happening here at all. I'm one of the initial SVN developers, but you won't see any flames from me, about git. I said "-0" because I believe our community won't see the related growth that some other projects see. It would be a change for little, if any, benefit. And I already stated else-thread that I really like GitHub. ... it isn't about a git/svn flame; it is about benefit/cost. Cheers, -g
