Hi everyone,

thank you all for your feedback. It seems that we have consensus to switch over to Git.

I'll prepare a Wiki page to start documentation on the processes and the needed steps to make the switch. I'll take over the topics mentioned in this thread (Taher's initial proposed workflow, Jacques notes about build scripts, auto-props etc.).

We should then finish the process description, maybe discuss and decide upon and then plan the technical switch.

Makes sense?

Best regards,


Am 23.01.19 um 07:37 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato:
+1 for Git!


On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:01 PM Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de>

Hi all,

I'd like to revive this discussion again.

Personally, I am now working with git for a few years and almost all
customer and company related projects have moved to git over time. In
the beginning, I found git complicated and less straight forward, a bit
like Adrian mentioned in [1]. But once I have understood the main
principles and get used to it, I won't like to switch back to svn ever

In my opinion, using git would make things much easier for
collaboration. Taher thoroughly described them in the inital thread

An important point for me would be that we could prevent premature
commits just to get things to be tested. Features which take some time
to be worked on or tested can be in separate branches which can be
updated with the main branch constantly.

So, from my point of view, we should again have a disussion and/or vote
to see if the overall opinions have changed and if we could move to git.



[1] http://markmail.org/message/m4z5b5qevqx7n6u7

Am 24.10.15 um 10:23 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb:
Hello Everyone,

I refer to the discussion about moving to git initiated by Hans Bakker
back in April. After a long, long discussion followed by a vote the
community agreed that we should develop a more elaborate and formal
workflow to vote on, as the initial vote was not detailed enough. Based on
that, I have proposed a workflow to see if people are interested in it. But
the topic just slowly died out.
The links to both threads are listed below. I understand that there was
a lot of interest in the community as the thread was really long. I would
like to revive the discussion and see if people are still interested in
implementing / amending the proposed workflow if they find it appealing.
discussion and vote thread :
workflow proposition thread :
Taher Alkhateeb
----- Original Message -----

From: "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2015 5:25:31 PM
Subject: Re: git commit workflow for ofbiz

Hi Jacques,

Very good read, thank you for sharing.

The person who wrote complaining about gitflow (I think Adam Ruka) makes
a good point. He prefers linear to branched history. I do not mind branched
history myself as I know how to navigate it but to each his own. Either
way, The workflow can be accomplished the way he suggested by rebasing
rather than merging the history and making a few other changes like
dropping "develop". It is up to community to decide, and git is flexible
enough to accommodate any model.
Taher Alkhateeb

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2015 4:19:42 PM
Subject: Re: git commit workflow for ofbiz

Le 24/06/2015 14:06, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
If you get a chance to read these articles I highly recommend them

Of course don't miss



Le 12/05/2015 19:28, Adam Heath a écrit :
Nice. This is quite thorough. There is an option missing. SVN
committers who use git offline. In this case, their changes can be
published as
primary SVN branches, for collaboration.. See OFBIZ-6271 in JIRA, and
as an SVN branch, for an example.
I've read through most of what follows, and am in agreement, but I'm
dealing with hardware problems, so I need to let it sink in first.
On 05/12/2015 04:43 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
Hi everyone,

This email refers to the thread for voting to move to git (link at
bottom) in which the vote decision was to delay and elaborate on the
first. I am not well versed in ASF guidelines and appreciate any help
and feedback and also please note some of the below is my opinion and not
necessarily 100% factual.

## First, identified problems

1. patches can quickly be outdated if not applied quickly
2. big patches are hard to audit and not desired nor preferred and It
is hard to break big patches to smaller ones because if any of those patches
is outdated or modified then everything needs to be re-patched
3. to collaborate with other people (non-committers) freely on big
features, we need a separate branch. On svn this is lengthy and heavily
controlled. If we create a git repository then we need to constantly
update from svn and merge . Another solution is to clone the ofbiz read-only
git repository but then there are some patch issues to convert them
to clean svn patches (I faced a few including things like white space)
4. a lot of _local_ offline freedom to branch, merge, commit, share
and experiment cannot be easily done without initiating a local git
which triggers the other problems identified above.
6. There are too many public branches in the repositoy. Some are not
active nor complete and quite old
## Second, how does git provide solutions

So, adopting git in relation to the above mentioned problems solves
them as follows:
1. even if a patch gets outdated, I can easily recreate it by
switching to a branch that I created and has the work (e.g. OFBIZ-12345),
everything from trunk and re-patching
2. to allow for proper feedback by community, a pull request can
replace a big patch and that request can hold an X amount of commits each
its own message and diff details. If changes happen to any of the
commits, then reconciling that into the code base is minor, you just branch
again, do it, and merge. Furthermore, I suggest to follow the
guidelines which recommend rebasing before pushing to a shared repository
to keep a
nice linear history as much as possible as shown here ->
3. large features can be done in a remote repository in github or
bitbucket with pull requests when complete and ready for review.
4. the issue is immediately solved with git which is not only local
but much, much faster
6. We do not need to pollute the main repository with branches if we
decide on a distributed model like git with remote repositories to
to the project with pull requests.

## Third, proposed workflow

I will make a distinction between small features / bug fixes and
large features.
### small features

Small features follow the exact same workflow that currently exists
in svn. You do your work, diff it, and attach the patch to a JIRA and
a commit from one of the committers.

### large features

For large features usually multiple people need to collaborate on a
separate branch. Here is where git shines and the distributed model kicks
1. A JIRA is created for a large feature
2. The team (not necessarily having a committer) creates a remote
repository which itself may have many branches with the master branch
having all
the work agreed upon and merged (actually, rebased)
3. The collaboration for this branch happens in the JIRA including
discussions, comments, and even links to the commits etc ...
4. A request is made to a committer to make a pull request from the
repository after reaching a certain milestone with consensus from the
community of course
5. Here, for extra safety, the branch model may have a trunk and a
develop branches. Everything is pulled to the develop branch and trickles
to the master branch after thorough and proper testing.

The above workflow can also adhere to the now famous Vincent Driessen
git branching model found here ->

I am not sure whether this proposal is enough or correct so I
appreciate your guidance and feedback to fix whatever needs fixing.
Taher Alkhateeb

original voting thread:


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to