I feel like the git thing is pretty well solved already - we have a git mirror of Thrift trunk, and for those who want to use git, that seems like it works fine. I don't think it would make sense for us to *switch* all of thrift to using git, though, if that's what you're suggesting.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Kevin Clark <kevin.cl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:32 AM, Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com > >wrote: > > > >> Why not simply make that person a committer and let them hack on > >> trunk from the start? > >> > > > > I could agree with this in principle, but I think that there is a > practical > > reason to do otherwise. In my experience, even once you've got a solid > vote > > done for a new committer, you end up waiting for weeks for action to be > > taken. > > > > Would it be possible for us to allow anyone access to the /branches dir > in > > our SVN repo? Then, the de facto way for experimental stuff to happen > would > > be to cut a branch and get to work. > > Sorry to prod at a long dead horse, but > we'd get this behavior for free with git (and that's how most of the ruby > implementation has been developed). When the project first went into apache, > the committers discussed (and seemed to be mostly in favor of) using git. > But at the time, git was less well established and there was political > pressure to stick to SVN. Is this still a sore spot for the ASF? One of the > nice things about git is that experimentation can happen easily, and then > adding "committers" is effectively just adding the right to merge to trunk. > I suppose the danger is adding confusion to what the mainline is, but that > seems solvable. > > Kevin Clark > http://glu.ttono.us >
