Hmm, to be honest, I don't see this argument. Because you can also use a
centralised model with GIT.
Also, the main benefit of GIT is not only that you can do offline commits, but
mostly that it's sooo much easier to merge!
I had a merge hell with my colleague in the company this week. He kept
I do agree with you. I don't really get this argument either.
But in the meantime, you need to use an svn backend, and ask for a git
mirror. You can then fork / merge at github the way you want, merge back
into trunk and git svn dcommit from there.
I think it's really worse, as branches
-Original Message-
From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:gno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 5:11 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Podling to use native git
I do agree with you. I don't really get this argument either.
But in the meantime, you need to use
I think it's really worse, as branches aren't maintained
anymore in the apache svn area,
yes, and anyone ever asked yourself _why_ this happens?
The answer imo is: because its _sooo_ painful to do feature branches in SVN
(and merge them back).
GIT otoh has it's flaws too. There is e.g. no
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:45, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
I think it's really worse, as branches aren't maintained
anymore in the apache svn area,
yes, and anyone ever asked yourself _why_ this happens?
The answer imo is: because its _sooo_ painful to do feature branches in
Wow, I haven't intended to start another flame war : )
From a technical standpoint, I do believe that git will be the default
choice of developers more and more
in the upcoming years, and Apache will start to support read-write git one
day. I was just curious if we can
volunteer to be the first
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Toni Menzel t...@okidokiteam.com wrote:
Its now the question to balance innovation (hence coolness) and
solid, well well known processes.
Its also that Subversion is still the king in corporates (well,
together with CVS). So you would attract a whole different
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Florent Guillaume f...@nuxeo.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Toni Menzel t...@okidokiteam.com wrote:
Its now the question to balance innovation (hence coolness) and
solid, well well known processes.
Its also that Subversion is still the king in
-Original Message-
From: Florent Guillaume [mailto:f...@nuxeo.com]
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 7:52 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Podling to use native git
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Toni Menzel t...@okidokiteam.com
wrote:
Its now the question to
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Enis Soztutar enis.soz.nu...@gmail.com
wrote:
..In the preparation phase for the recent Gora podling, I realized that
the
code needs be restructured to subversion
Dear ALOIS Developers,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator
PMC.
It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 20 October 2010, 12 pm Pacific. The
report
for your
Dear Gora Developers,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator
PMC.
It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 20 October 2010, 12 pm Pacific. The
report
for your
Hi Guys,
As the project's champion I'll work with the rest of the mentors and PPMC
members to make sure we are moving forward in the Apache Way.
Cheers,
Chris
On 10/1/10 2:23 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Enis Soztutar
I am calling this vote as suggested:
IPMC Binding:
+1
Jim Jagielski
Kevan Miller
Davanum Srinivas
Niclas Hedhman
Julien Vermillard
Alan D. Cabrera
Mark Struberg
(my apologies to anyone I may have missed)
Non-binding:
Stuart Williams
Rainer Jung
Niclas Hedhman
Mohammad Nour El-Din
(my
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 04:45, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
I think it's really worse, as branches aren't maintained
anymore in the apache svn area,
yes, and anyone ever asked yourself _why_ this happens?
The answer imo is: because its _sooo_ painful to do feature branches in SVN
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I do branches all the time in Subversion, and don't see problems. We
periodically update the branch from trunk, and when the work is done,
merge the branch back onto trunk. These are straight-forward
operations, so I don't
you even have one more, since Niclas is also a member and IPMC [1] ;)
LieGrue,
strub
[1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
--- On Fri, 10/1/10, matt...@matthewsacks.com matt...@matthewsacks.com wrote:
From: matt...@matthewsacks.com matt...@matthewsacks.com
Subject: Re: [RESULT]
It seems that with 1.6 SVN did learn a bit about the 'git way' (apologize if it
was even earlier and has nothing to do with git). SVN now applies merges bit by
bit it seems (tested with 1.6.9). But I still have problems with intermediately
merged projects (merging the trunk into my branch ~
Well, the last time I had to know, ASF SVN was not 1.6, and the only
merge technology was svnmerge.py, and make sure there's no Chinese in
your log comments :-)
It works. It doesn't work nearly so well as git for merging. CXF
developers routinely use git-svn for feature branches.
For all I know,
Corrected. Thanks for the catch!
-Original Message-
From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2010 5:55pm
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
you even have one more, since Niclas is also a member and IPMC [1] ;)
Yup. The 1.5.x release introduced a feature called merge tracking,
but you really want to use 1.6.x (where many merge tracking issues
were fixed/improved/sped-up). It remembers which revisions have been
merged into a given location in the repository. This means bringing a
branch up to date is
21 matches
Mail list logo
