Santiago Gala wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> > No project was allowed to stay with CVS. No project will be allowed to
> > use another source control system unless it is adopted at the ASF
> > level. Source code is a critical, shared, public resource maintained
> > by the Foundation, not something whose storage is managed on a project
> > by project basis. The Infrastructure Team maintains and protects that
> > shared resource on behalf of the Foundation.
> If I remember correctly, the policy was not to impose subversion, but to
> mandate end of life for CVS.
You remember incorrectly. The mandate was to migrate from
Infrastructure-managed CVS to Infrastructure-managed Subversion, not from CVS
to the SCM of your choice.
> If I remember correctly, this was due to security concerns, CVS requiring
> user accounts in the machine where the repository is stored while subversion
> does not. Also functionality. Also that having a lengthy transition was
> stressing infrastructure. I have been looking into mail archives but have
> not found a pointer yet.
There were a variety of reasons, including the above, but none of that
addresses your apparent belief that the ASF should support ad hoc and arbitrary
selections of critical infrastructure by individual projects.
> - you are no longer considering the Foundation as an umbrella for the
> projects, but as an entity with a life that, I see from your reaction,
> needs to protect itself from the (some?) projects
That is an extreme interpretation. I could as easily say that you are in favor
of each project being able to maintain its own critical infrastructure on any
servers anywhere with arbitrary security and community practices. I don't
believe that is your actual view, but I could take your words to say so.
> - The infrastructure team is a Police body ("to serve and protect")
Saying that ensuring availability and safety (from loss and/or tampering) is
one of the goals we have with respect to our data is hardly the same as your
claim.
> Information can be copied and still stays the same, trying to restrict
> it to a server is really futile and wasting.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
> I don't think centralization has ever been part of "the Apache way".
But visibility of the content and process very much IS part of "the Apache Way."
Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some where people are
using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run counter to ASF principles. It is
*NOT* in our best interests and practices for people to work in private on bulk
code, and periodically submit big changes. We want those changes made in
public view in Subversion branches where the Community can see the work in
progress, not when it is complete. We need to reeducate people who believe
otherwise.
That said, I am not saying that people can't use whatever SVN client(s) they
want to use. I am saying that (a) the ASF has a uniform source control
infrastructure, which is currently based on SVN servers, and (b) our practices
mean that development is done in public, not done in private and submitted en
masse as a fait accompli. These statements are independent of the SCM
technology used by the ASF.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
