I am curious about Doug's concern in this case. I don't see what the issue is if, for example, two developers are collaborating on some code before presenting it to the community. Surely the community doesn't want to see every half-baked thought and incomplete patch set before the author(s) are ready to contribute. Whether two people collaborating are using a Git repo or emailing tarballs of files back and forth is kind of beside the point, isn't it?
I do see Doug's points about having workflow captured in JIRA. This is something we will need to think about. Chad On 6/11/08 3:42 PM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > 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. But I'm getting the feeling that if I don't use Git for Thrift work then I'll be a second-class citizen. 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 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? Doug
