I agree 100% Nicolas. Take advantage of Git and GitHub for the ease of collaboration, but retain a reference Git repository at Codehaus where only commiters can make pushes (possible from a GitHub fork where they already filtered incoming contributions). That sounds like a win-win approach.
-- Julien Ponge http://julien.ponge.info/ On lundi 29 août 2011 at 22:40, nicolas de loof wrote: > > > 2011/8/29 Christopher Hunt <hu...@internode.on.net > (mailto:hu...@internode.on.net)> > > On 30/08/2011, at 4:09 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote: > > > > > I think the github bit is part of the issue, also I think the release > > > process should be left up to the plugin at this point and mojo's ought > > > to do away with the whole vote, wait a couple of days, release > > > process. It makes sense on maven core but the plugins in mojo are so > > > diverse it makes little sense to delay plugin releases on votes > > > anymore. > > > > > > change to git and remove the voting requirements on the mojo project > > > and I think things will aggregate back together again > > > > > You cite the Codehaus voting process as a detrimental thing; I see it as > > rigour that is a good thing. I can't say that I always enjoy the scrutiny > > of what happens when I release something, but I sure do appreciate it. > > > > If you don't like The Codehaus quality assurance processes then simply > > fork your project entirely to Github and don't bother with The Codehaus at > > all. > > > > The scm issue in summary: > > > > Github hosted Git == no MOJO approval process around who becomes a > > committer. > > Codehaus hosted Git == benefits of Git while retaining our committer > > approval process and leveraging our other QA processes. > > That's exactly why I moved gwt-maven-plugin to github (but still push changes > back to svn). Being on github helped me to get more contributions from > various end-users, some minor, some more significant, and I gave them full > acces to do what they thing is useful for the plugin to envolve. GitHub is a > awesome collaboration platform, we could use it more transparently if mojo > where hosted on a git repo at codehaus, but the "one repo for all mojo" > policy can't apply here, and don't make sense imho. > Consider how jenkins hosts hundred plugins on the same github organisation, > without such heavy process, and don't tell me there is no community there ! > Sharing a repository is absolutely not necessary to get collaboration between > mojos. > > We had a thread earlier in june to move mojo on git, and mirror it on github, > but I still can't see any progress on that. > > > > > Kind regards, > > Christopher > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > >
