Doug Cutting wrote:
> David Reiss wrote:
>> Doug Cutting wrote:
>>> I worry that folks will post changes to their private repos and that
>>> other Git users might pull these changes without any on-list traffic.
>> If anyone ever does this, I will personally punch them in the face.
>> Okay, that is not true. Chad and I have been doing this a little bit
>> with the templates branch, BUT (1) it is in the public repository, (2)
>> we announced our intentions and our branch names so that anyone could
>> follow the development, and (3) we will absolutely submit this branch
>> for a thorough public review before we try to commit to trunk.
>
> Do you have a bloody nose? Seriously, this is exactly the kind of stuff
> that Apache eschews.
Why is this a problem? Our intentions were announced publicly. Our
work is trackable by anyone. We will bring it up on the list (or in
JIRA) again when it is ready for prime time. Most people are not the
least bit interested in the incremental bits of work going on in this
branch.
>> Terminology is fine. It is absolutely possible to set this up.
>> Upayavira told us that he didn't think these should go to the -dev list
>> because it is an unnofficial repo.
>
> The term "unofficial repo" itself raises a flag for me. All development
> should ideally be in a single forum, so that everyone can contribute
> equally. Not all Apache projects need use the same tools.
Maybe the problem is that both Git and Subversion use the same term
("repository"). Within the context of Thrift, I think of Git as
1/ A tool for examining the history of Thrift (the "master" branch which
tracks the SVN trunk.
2/ A tool that I use locally for preparing my SVN commits.
3/ A medium for publishing and consuming experimental work.
I do *not* think of it as an authoritative source for the Thrift
codebase. That (for now :-) ) is Subversion.
> But I'm
> getting the feeling that if I don't use Git for Thrift work then I'll be
> a second-class citizen.
I am committed to preventing this. I think the workflow I described in
my first email (if fleshed out and wiki-fied) can allow non-Git users to
interact with the Git un-repository as easily (or more easily) than they
interact with patches in JIRA. If you feel that you are not able to
participate in Thrift development at the same level as a Git user,
please let me know what is stopping you and I will do whatever I can to
make our Git-based work available to you.
> So perhaps we ought to make that explicit and
> suggest that everyone use Git. Folks can still submit patches other
> ways, e.g., compact flash via carrier pigeon, but Git would be preferred
> to Jira + patch file.
I would love this. I can definitely write up a wiki for how to do it.
>> I would prefer if our development process was not dependent on
>> proprietary technology. (For the record, I agreed to use JIRA before I
>> knew it was closed-source.)
>
> If you feel strongly about this, then we perhaps we can switch. What's
> the alternative?
Bugzilla. I don't feel that strongly because Apache is willing to
provide JIRA as a service and JIRA's APIs will allow us to export our
data if it ever becomes a problem (which is unlikely, in my estimation.)
--David
