On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev <dev@httpd.apache.org> wrote: > > On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We > have some closer ties to Subversion by some > overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our > very own dogfood here by using Subversion. > We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of > our development tools from an Apache license to GPL. > Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check > if all of the current active committers are fine > using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we > use Git I would like us to leverage the features of > Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if > active committers would have issues with Github. > > > +1. > > I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github > supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they > prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with. > > While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners > of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, > goals change at any time and without warning.
Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git. Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019 since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to it.
