The problem with doing this offline development and then submitting one big patch is that the community doesn't get a chance to provide input along the way. I've seen other ASF projects that operated under that model at some times and it really wasn't a good way to foster community involvement in the project (IMHO).
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Antony Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because IMO and many others that have used it, Git is > Jira, patches and > svn and much prefer it. > But if you want to work with patches, then that's fine. I will submit a > patch later, as I was going to do anyway. > > 2008/10/10 Thijs Vonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> James Carman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Locke >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> i'm sick of new version control systems. i want simple eclipse >>>> integration >>>> and since SVN finally works for me i wish people would stick with it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Agreed! The git vs. svn discussion had been done before in different >>> ASF forums and the bottom line is that the ASF uses SVN (currently) >>> for its version control. Also, since source work is not supposed to >>> be done "behind closed doors" (ASF is all about community) it's best >>> if the work is done using the SVN repository. >>> >>> >> Also I don't understand why we can't use Jira & patches as long as we're >> not certain of the implementation. >> I've seen large updates to codebases done this way @ lucene/solr and that >> seems to work fine. >> > > > > -- > ___________________________ > http://stubbisms.wordpress.com/ >
