I know many people would love the ASF to move to GIT as the primary repository. Or Mercurial. Or... At the moment, SVN is the only SCM supported by the ASF infrastructure team.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2010/board_minutes_2010_09_22.txt Apparently, the infrastructure team has been looking into making GIT work with the ASF way of things. There seem to be legal issues imposed by a distributed SCM, too. At the moment, the following is available, but not more: http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html On 14.09.2011 17:09:13 Glenn Adams wrote: > ok, that's a reasonable argument for not attempting to track in line; > > btw, it would be nice to convert to GIT some time as the primary repo > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Jeremias Maerki > <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote: > > > On 14.09.2011 15:07:11 Glenn Adams wrote: > > > i don't understand why they should be removed even if replaced by a > > common > > > list: > > > > First of all because of a ASF board recommendation: > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/board_minutes_2004_02_18.txt > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/board_minutes_2004_09_22.txt > > > > And seeing how many ASF projects follow that, it can be considered a > > majority opinion around here. > > > > > (1) citing authors in the source files they contribute helps future > > efforts > > > to research issues > > > > That's a job SVN and ViewVC are much better at. > > > > > (2) citing authors in the source files they contribute helps in > > addressing > > > any IPR issues that might arise > > > > Again, SVN does it much better. > > > > > (3) moving author citations to a common list will likely result in a > > > disconnect between the author and the works they contributed, as the > > binding > > > will tend to be lost > > > > That's basically one intention behind it. There shall be no "gardens" > > where some people don't dare touch because there is a strong bond > > between a piece of code and its creator. Still, SVN/ViewVC can make the > > connection where necessary. > > > > > (4) where is the harm in citing authors in the original contributions? > > > > See (3). And over time, other people work on the code. Over FOP's almost > > 12 years, many dozens of people contributed to FOP, changing this and > > that. So that initial information in the code gets more and more > > inaccurate, especially if these people don't add their own names. Can > > you still tell after a few years which lines really come from the > > original author (just from looking at the source code)? Where we always > > retain contributor information is the SVN commit message. Every > > contribution from a non-committer has to be annotated with the > > contributors name. So it's all in Subversion. > > > > Take this, for example: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ComplexScripts/src/java/org/apache/fop/area/Block.java?view=annotate > > (lines 135-142, spepping rev 1136144) > > > > It says "spepping" because he applied your patch, but if you follow the > > revision number, you'll find this: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1136144 > > > > So it's all documented who changed what. If everyone followed the old > > CVS pattern of "Submitted by: <contributor>", we could even > > automatically extract a contributor list from SVN. > > > > > overall, i don't see any upside to removing them, but only downside > > > > No information is lost. But it reduces redundancy and increases fairness. > > > > Anyway, no need to restart the discussions about the pros and cons here. > > There were enough heated ones all over the place in 2003/2004. The > > following search tells the story well: > > http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=author%20tags > > > > > if I were a voting member in this PMC, I would vote -1 > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Jeremias Maerki < > > d...@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote: > > > > > > > +1 in general on removing author tags (it's a board recommendation > > after > > > > all). But strong -1 on removing them without adding them to some > > central > > > > list of contributors. > > > > > > > > On 12.09.2011 16:27:26 vhennebert wrote: > > > > > Author: vhennebert > > > > > Date: Mon Sep 12 14:27:25 2011 > > > > > New Revision: 1169766 > > > > > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1169766&view=rev > > > > > Log: > > > > > Bugzilla #51790: source file contains non-ascii character > > > > > Removed @author tags > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > > > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/rtf/RTFHandler.java > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/rtf/RTFHandler.java > > > > > URL: > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/rtf/RTFHandler.java?rev=1169766&r1=1169765&r2=1169766&view=diff > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > > > > --- > > > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/rtf/RTFHandler.java > > > > (original) > > > > > +++ > > > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/rtf/RTFHandler.java Mon > > > > Sep 12 14:27:25 2011 > > > > > @@ -132,12 +132,6 @@ import org.apache.fop.render.rtf.rtflib. > > > > > /** > > > > > * RTF Handler: generates RTF output using the structure events from > > > > > * the FO Tree sent to this structure handler. > > > > > - * > > > > > - * @author Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> > > > > > - * @author Trembicki-Guy, Ed <g...@dnb.com> > > > > > - * @author Boris Poudérous <boris.pouder...@eads-telecom.com> > > > > > - * @author Peter Herweg <pher...@web.de> > > > > > - * @author Andreas Putz <a.p...@skynamics.com> > > > > > */ > > > > > public class RTFHandler extends FOEventHandler { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > Jeremias Maerki
