On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:09 -0400, Justin Edelson wrote:
> > Git-svn is awesome (I use it), but since a Git merge cannot be
> > represented in Subversion, you aren't able to safely pull/merge/push
> > with other Git repos. It basically becomes a very fancy patch
> > manager when used this way.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
wrote:
>
> On 15 Sep 2010, at 16:38, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
Usually patches only get applied if committers think they are good
enough and worthy to apply. Not every patch gets applied no matter
what.
>>>
>>> And how is that de
On 9/16/10 10:34 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:31 -0400, Justin Edelson wrote:
>> I can say with some confidence that without the git svn workflow, I
>> would not be an Apache committer. I would have done exactly what I'd
>> done for years prior - svn export from a tag, svn impor
On 15 Sep 2010, at 16:50, Santiago Gala wrote:
> distributed SCM along those last 5 years or so) can keep the illusion
> that a technical solution (called "centralization" here) can keep an
> organization together more than a set of core values can.
No sorry - we are arguing (or at least I am) t
On 15 Sep 2010, at 16:38, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Usually patches only get applied if committers think they are good
>>> enough and worthy to apply. Not every patch gets applied no matter
>>> what.
>>
>> And how is that dependent on the version control tool? See, it isn't.
>> It's a function
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:31 -0400, Justin Edelson wrote:
> I can say with some confidence that without the git svn workflow, I
> would not be an Apache committer. I would have done exactly what I'd
> done for years prior - svn export from a tag, svn import, and patch.
> Maybe re-export and reapply
On 9/15/10 7:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> In my opinion the above statements are absolutely correct. That is, the
> vast majority of local modifications never make it anywhere near project
> maintainers.
>
> GIT does not, and will not, change this on its own - it's a cultural
> issue not a tool
- Original Message
> From: Ross Gardler
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 7:18:17 PM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On 15/09/2010 19:32, Tony Finch wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Santiago Gala wrote:
&g
On 15/09/2010 19:32, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Santiago Gala wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
wrote:
Especially as the pattern seems to be conductive to personal
gratification** more than community; and leads to patchcollections
which are the work of
- Original Message
> From: Torsten Curdt
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 2:16:42 PM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> > To try to put my finger on the key distinction I've seen, a "centralized"
- Original Message
> From: Eric Evans
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 2:30:25 PM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:19 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > I do not view myself a
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Santiago Gala wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
> wrote:
> >
> > Especially as the pattern seems to be conductive to personal
> > gratification** more than community; and leads to patchcollections
> > which are the work of love of a single person
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:19 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > I do not view myself as a gatekeeper, and more importantly, that is
> > not a role I desire (for myself or anyone else). However, I'm not
> > self-deluded enough to believe that because I aspire to lofty
> > ideals, that I somehow do n
> To try to put my finger on the key distinction I've seen, a "centralized"
> workflow puts demands on people to "make promises" up front.
Not necessarily. Enough people start playing with something. Just to
see if it works. All that happens on their local system though. I have
never seen a projec
- Original Message
> From: Eric Evans
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 1:02:17 PM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:05 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > It is amazing how
- Original Message
> From: Joe Schaefer
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 12:05:27 PM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> - Original Message
>
> > From: Santiago Gala
> > To: community@ap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> I can appreciate that, but the stock answer to that is "just give them
>> commit". High barriers to committership is not what Apache is about.
>
> You may be interested to learn tha
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:05 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > It is amazing how you (and I mean a big y'all of people negating
> > distributed SCM along those last 5 years or so) can keep the
> > illusion that a technical solution (called "centralization" here)
> > can keep an organization togethe
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I can appreciate that, but the stock answer to that is "just give them
> commit". High barriers to committership is not what Apache is about.
You may be interested to learn that the Open Participation Software
for Java (htttP;//wiki.ops4j.o
- Original Message
> From: Santiago Gala
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 11:50:34 AM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> (...)
> > It does give
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
I see the "dscm is an unsuitable workflow for collaborative
development" meme as this: a meme.
I don't see it as unsuitable. I see it as different. It's different in
a lot of ways, but is neither better nor worse. The insistence that
it's
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
(...)
> It does give me pause because I believe there's an important role for a
> set of central services for projects (and for societies in general). As
> far as Apache goes, it's a virtual organization whose roots lie in the
> stuff we have s
>> Usually patches only get applied if committers think they are good
>> enough and worthy to apply. Not every patch gets applied no matter
>> what.
>
> And how is that dependent on the version control tool? See, it isn't.
> It's a function of the community's value system.
In his repository he c
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Torsten Curdt
>> To: community@apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 11:10:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>>
>>
- Original Message
> From: Eric Evans
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 11:13:15 AM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 07:32 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > With a centrali
- Original Message
> From: Torsten Curdt
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 11:10:21 AM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> >> Everyone else gets a "working
> >> copy" and is expe
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 07:32 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > With a centralized vcs, a select group of privileged individuals
> > are given access, they are the gate keepers.
>
> Eh, no. That's exactly how Linux works, with people having protective
> attitudes towards their own trees: git only mak
>> Everyone else gets a "working
>> copy" and is expected to create a patch (or patches) and then work to
>> convince a committer to apply them.
>
> That's not the Apache model, fwiw. Collaboration means you work as equals,
> committer status or not.
Hm? Reality check?
Usually patches only ge
- Original Message
> From: Eric Evans
> To: community@apache.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 10:18:46 AM
> Subject: Re: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 08:04 +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > Especially as the
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 08:04 +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Especially as the pattern seems to be conductive to personal
> gratification** more than community; and leads to patchcollections
> which are the work of love of a single person quite easily. And that
> seems to cause fragmentation o
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> BTW, on an unrelated subject: what was going on in the development of
> the Apache httpd server the week before 2001-9-11, i.e. 2001-9-03
> through 10? Yes, I mean the week before 9/11 I'm doing some statistics
> about OS projects, and this w
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:29, Ben Hyde wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I just can't resist the opportunity to fork this discussion:
>>>
>>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/09/13/One-True-Way
>>
>> tee hee
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> *: though lack some of the (i)CLA cleanness which is troubling me.
Maybe it's instructive to have a look at how patch origin cleanness and
signoff (similar, though not (i)CLA) is dealt with at the Linux Kernel
project:
http://www.youtube.com/fos
On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:29, Ben Hyde wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I just can't resist the opportunity to fork this discussion:
>>
>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/09/13/One-True-Way
>
> tee hee
>
> have we pushed the apache way pages to git hub yet?
That would be
On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I just can't resist the opportunity to fork this discussion:
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/09/13/One-True-Way
tee hee
have we pushed the apache way pages to git hub yet?
-
To
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just read the thoughtful piece by Anil Dash at
> http://dashes.com/anil/2010/09/forking-is-a-feature.html. I don't really
> agree or disagree with his points, but it's an interesting take on the value
> of distributed version
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Isabel Drost wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
>> I'd love to hear the reactions of other ASF members to the piece. I'd
>> also love to be directed to previous discussions on the topic, as I
>> know that adopting git for some projects has been
On 13/09/2010 11:21, Isabel Drost wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
I'd love to hear the reactions of other ASF members to the piece. I'd
also love to be directed to previous discussions on the topic, as I
know that adopting git for some projects has been discussed
previously.
Please see/join infra-dev@ mailing list for details:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/
that's where most of this was discussed.
thanks,
dims
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Isabel Drost wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
>> I'd love to hear th
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> I'd love to hear the reactions of other ASF members to the piece. I'd
> also love to be directed to previous discussions on the topic, as I
> know that adopting git for some projects has been discussed
> previously.
IIRC there should be some discussi
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
I'd love to hear the reactions of other ASF members to the piece. I'd
also love to be directed to previous discussions on the topic, as I know
that adopting git for some projects has been discussed previously.
At the moment, many ASF projects publi
Hey,
I just read the thoughtful piece by Anil Dash at
http://dashes.com/anil/2010/09/forking-is-a-feature.html. I don't really
agree or disagree with his points, but it's an interesting take on the value
of distributed version control and the evolution of how open source
communities get work done.
42 matches
Mail list logo
