You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2011/11/15 14:44:57 UTC
Plans for migrating to SVN?
I'm not seeing any plans for migrating the Callback source to SVN. Can
you please tell us where we are at with this critical step to entering
incubation.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
> The canonical source from which releases are made are here at
> the ASF. This is different to the model you are proposing.
Oh, good. We misunderstand. Thats precisely how we want to work. Im
not proposing anything different. (Relief.)
>>> The fact is Git is better at some things
>>> and worse at others.
>>
>> What is it worst at? I think it might help to enumerate some benefits:
>
> These arguments have been had over and over again. You need to step
> out of your camp and look at the bigger picture if we are to proceed.
Good, I do not want to belabour it either. Acknowledging it is a
perfectly suitable technology, and there is no technical arg otherwise
to be made against it, we agree the principle issue then is that we
need to clearly define the contribution path in documentation for the
ASF. And this we will do. Sent an earlier email to the Couch guys and
contacted them off list. You can expect commitment from us to get this
right.
>> I have not heard any reasoning yet other than its current policy which
>> I view with optimism. We will work with you to change that policy. If
>> our path to doing that is getting docs written from the Couch project
>> then we will immediately begin doing that / participate there. Let me
>> know if we can do anything else to expedite things.
>
> Excellent. I concur with Christians comments in reply to this.
Cool. Thank you again!
>> (Thank you again for staying tough on us Ross: we appreciate the help
>> in mentorship, and keeping us honest with ourselves and our
>> reasoning.)
>
> Thanks for recognising my goal here. It's hard enforcing ASF policies
> that I feel need to change. However, I'm not going to push for that
> change until we are well equipped, there is simply too much riding on
> it.
+1
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 17, 2011 4:19 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > I've asked twice already, but not got a direct response. I'll ask
> > again: What is it about the existing development process that cannot
> > happen in SVN.
>
>
> I feel I've answered that question directly, and repeatedly now, Ross.
> Pls see previous notes on Git. If something isn't clear then pls
> explain what precisely is not clear.
I don't agree. There had been no discussion of the community management
process in this thread. Maybe these were addressed in previous discussions,
but unfortunately I was not party to them. I'll check the archives.
Ross
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
> I've asked twice already, but not got a direct response. I'll ask
> again: What is it about the existing development process that cannot
> happen in SVN.
I feel I've answered that question directly, and repeatedly now, Ross.
Pls see previous notes on Git. If something isn't clear then pls
explain what precisely is not clear.
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 15:40, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
> I have always taken this conversation as Git Vs. SVN, not GitHub.
>
> I think it's clear that the technical arguments of X Vs. Y are thin. The real issue I don't see addressed enough is the culture change. PhoneGap is strong, but it isn't immune to defection if the cultural changes imvolved in moving to SVN are perceived to be greater by the community than the move to Apache. Community shocks have occurred in the past and sunk projects. I am on the fence about this.
>
This is the issue I want to get to the bottom of. ASF projects are
managed in an open, meritocratic way with a single canonical version
from which releases are cut. This can be done with Git (technical
concerns aside), but it does require a certain cultural attitude
towards project management.
I am concerned that a desire to stay on GItHub and/or Git is an
indicator that The Apache Way may not be the right model for this
project. Since Jukka knows what he is doing my concern may be
unfounded, but as a mentor I need to understand this project in order
to best support it.
I've asked twice already, but not got a direct response. I'll ask
again: What is it about the existing development process that cannot
happen in SVN. If we can understand that then we can start to explore
what "cultural shocks" there might be around the corner.
Ross
>
> ___________________________________________
> LDH (Laurent Hasson)
> Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform
> Research In Motion
> Email: lhasson@rim.com
> Mobile: 646-460-7066
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "That's who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rogers!" - Simon Phoenix
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Torch!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: eduardo pelegri-llopart [mailto:pelegri@calterra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 09:01 AM
> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org <ca...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
>
> Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
> read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
> how I feel.
>
> - eduard/o
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
>> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
>> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
>> Ross
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Matt Kane <as...@gmail.com>.
On 17/11/11 17:43, Ross Gardler wrote:
> No, they cannot be pushed to anywhere other than ASF hardware. That is the
> point. It does matter.
>
> Ross
I think you misunderstand me. I meant that for the individual developers
it doesn't matter. We can maintain our own working forks however we
want, Github or otherwise, but we push the canonical version to ASF
before release.
Matt
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 17, 2011 4:41 PM, "Matt Kane" <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 15:47, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> >
> > Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
> > should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
> > from there appropriately."
> >
> > So I'm not sure anymore.
> >
> > Ross
>
> Surely one of the benefits of Git is that it doesn't matter. We can run
our own forks on GitHub, or just on our own dev machines, and they can be
pushed back to Github, or up to the hypothetical canonical ASF git repo.
The ASF repo can still be used for releases.
>
No, they cannot be pushed to anywhere other than ASF hardware. That is the
point. It does matter.
Ross
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Matt Kane <as...@gmail.com>.
On 17 Nov 2011, at 15:47, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
> should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
> from there appropriately."
>
> So I'm not sure anymore.
>
> Ross
Surely one of the benefits of Git is that it doesn't matter. We can run our own forks on GitHub, or just on our own dev machines, and they can be pushed back to Github, or up to the hypothetical canonical ASF git repo. The ASF repo can still be used for releases.
Matt
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 15:57, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> Nothing to be concerned about. All healthy discussion. Def not about
>> Github but rather Git itself. Lets refocus, and take the discussion to
>> the couch-dev list, see Git as experiment through to fruition as a
>> sanctioned rcs at ASF.
>
> OK, we can do that.
Good.
> However, be aware that you will be reporting to
> the board in the first week of December. I want that board report to
> contain concrete and complete proposals for moving forwards. If that
> proposal is as currently outlined be aware that I expect pushback.
Cool, and we appreciate your support preparing for expected pushback!
I've started board reports here:
https://github.com/callback/apache-board-reports some time ago to get
the practice going.
> For your proposal to be acceptable you will need to demonstrate a
> healthy understanding of The Apache Way and Gits place within it.
No problem.
> Hopefully that will develop over on couchDB (yes I'm on that list).
Cool, awesome, pls chime in to my first post!!!
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 15:57, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> Nothing to be concerned about. All healthy discussion. Def not about
> Github but rather Git itself. Lets refocus, and take the discussion to
> the couch-dev list, see Git as experiment through to fruition as a
> sanctioned rcs at ASF.
OK, we can do that. However, be aware that you will be reporting to
the board in the first week of December. I want that board report to
contain concrete and complete proposals for moving forwards. If that
proposal is as currently outlined be aware that I expect pushback.
For your proposal to be acceptable you will need to demonstrate a
healthy understanding of The Apache Way and Gits place within it.
Hopefully that will develop over on couchDB (yes I'm on that list).
Ross
Ross
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> On 17 November 2011 15:01, eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com> wrote:
>>> Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
>>> read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
>>> how I feel.
>>
>> Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
>> should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
>> from there appropriately."
>>
>> So I'm not sure anymore.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - eduard/o
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
>>>> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
>>>> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Nothing to be concerned about. All healthy discussion. Def not about
Github but rather Git itself. Lets refocus, and take the discussion to
the couch-dev list, see Git as experiment through to fruition as a
sanctioned rcs at ASF.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 15:01, eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com> wrote:
>> Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
>> read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
>> how I feel.
>
> Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
> should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
> from there appropriately."
>
> So I'm not sure anymore.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>>
>> - eduard/o
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
>>> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
>>> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
>>> Ross
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
> GitHub is a very easy way to host Git, and it does have some benefits over
> a plain Git. I read Brian's comment as one of "keep things as they are
> while we figure out the final solution", but... Brian?
yes.
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com>.
GitHub is a very easy way to host Git, and it does have some benefits over
a plain Git. I read Brian's comment as one of "keep things as they are
while we figure out the final solution", but... Brian?
- eduard/o
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 15:01, eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com>
> wrote:
> > Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
> > read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's
> certainly
> > how I feel.
>
> Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
> should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
> from there appropriately."
>
> So I'm not sure anymore.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
> >
> > - eduard/o
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
> >> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
> >> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
> >> Ross
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 15:01, eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com> wrote:
> Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
> read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
> how I feel.
Originally I thought we were talking about Git, but Brian said "It
should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
from there appropriately."
So I'm not sure anymore.
Ross
>
> - eduard/o
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
>> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
>> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
>> Ross
>>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com>.
I have always taken this conversation as Git Vs. SVN, not GitHub.
I think it's clear that the technical arguments of X Vs. Y are thin. The real issue I don't see addressed enough is the culture change. PhoneGap is strong, but it isn't immune to defection if the cultural changes imvolved in moving to SVN are perceived to be greater by the community than the move to Apache. Community shocks have occurred in the past and sunk projects. I am on the fence about this.
___________________________________________
LDH (Laurent Hasson)
Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform
Research In Motion
Email: lhasson@rim.com
Mobile: 646-460-7066
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"That's who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rogers!" - Simon Phoenix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Torch!
----- Original Message -----
From: eduardo pelegri-llopart [mailto:pelegri@calterra.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 09:01 AM
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org <ca...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
how I feel.
- eduard/o
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>
> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
> Ross
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com>.
Are we mixing up the arguments for GitHub with those for Git? I mostly
read arguments for Git, with a "GitHub is a convenience". That's certainly
how I feel.
- eduard/o
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>
> It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
> that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
> community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
> Ross
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 13:44, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ross, I totally agree with your points here.
>
> However, don't you think it's a bit counterproductive to enforce the
> migration to Subversion now if it's possible that say in 2012 it might
> already be OK to use Git within the ASF?
It's not the tools I care about. It's the processes. An insistence
that GitHub is the only place that this project can build the type of
community it wants to is a huge warning sign for me.
I've not seen that addressed yet. Is this community willing and able
to conduct itself in a way compatible with The Apache Way? If it is
then SVN vs Git is irrelevant from a tool point of view.
> We're not in a hurry with this. As mentioned before IMHO we should
> postpone the migration a few months to find out what the best way to
> proceed is.
It is likely to be 6-12 months (at the current pace) before Git is
available at the ASF, if at all. It might be that this community can
help accelerate this through positive engagement with the Git
experiments.
Ross
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 13:52, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, don't you think it's a bit counterproductive to enforce the
>> migration to Subversion now if it's possible that say in 2012 it might
>> already be OK to use Git within the ASF? The result would be that we
>> first migrate to Subversion, break history and developer tooling along
>> the way, and then switch back to Git to arrive just where we started.
>
> Actually we are returning to my original post. We don't know how long
> it might take, because we have no plan. We just have thousands of
> mails flying around. My suggestion is that we work on the plan, the
> requirements and try to get this experiment done.
+1
Ross
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, don't you think it's a bit counterproductive to enforce the
> migration to Subversion now if it's possible that say in 2012 it might
> already be OK to use Git within the ASF? The result would be that we
> first migrate to Subversion, break history and developer tooling along
> the way, and then switch back to Git to arrive just where we started.
Actually we are returning to my original post. We don't know how long
it might take, because we have no plan. We just have thousands of
mails flying around. My suggestion is that we work on the plan, the
requirements and try to get this experiment done.
2 Phonegap devs have subscribed already to the couchdb dev list. It
would be cool if you have some cycles too to support the coach people
with the experiment. Then we are already 5 supporters (counting in
Ross and myself).
Once we have had the initial discussions we have a better clue about
how many problems we have to solve and can estimate how long it will
take (or say it will take longer than 1 year or something)
dev-subscribe@couchdb.apache.org ?
Cheers
>
> We're not in a hurry with this. As mentioned before IMHO we should
> postpone the migration a few months to find out what the best way to
> proceed is. If it becomes clear that Git can be used within the ASF
> within close enough future, then we'd better avoid the Subversion
> roundtrip. And if some good reason comes up on why the ASF won't be
> supporting Git any time soon, then we should indeed bite the bullet
> and switch to Subversion as the canonical source repository.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Ross, I totally agree with your points here.
However, don't you think it's a bit counterproductive to enforce the
migration to Subversion now if it's possible that say in 2012 it might
already be OK to use Git within the ASF? The result would be that we
first migrate to Subversion, break history and developer tooling along
the way, and then switch back to Git to arrive just where we started.
We're not in a hurry with this. As mentioned before IMHO we should
postpone the migration a few months to find out what the best way to
proceed is. If it becomes clear that Git can be used within the ASF
within close enough future, then we'd better avoid the Subversion
roundtrip. And if some good reason comes up on why the ASF won't be
supporting Git any time soon, then we should indeed bite the bullet
and switch to Subversion as the canonical source repository.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 10:16, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> Hi Ross, answers inline.
>
>> However, don't let this divert the community here from making a case
>> for sticking with GitHub whilst being in the incubator. So far no-one
>> has answered my questions.
>>
>> Why is Callback different from all the other projects in the ASF?
>
> PhoneGap has 3 years of history in Git and on Github, Its where our
> community is. This is not unique. CouchDB is there as well as many
> thousands of free software projects. Moving to SVN would damage our
> workflow and our community involvement.
CouchDB is not on GitHub, it is on SVN here at the ASF. There are
forks on GitHub of CouchDB and many other projects. However, they are
forks. The canonical source from which releases are made are here at
the ASF. This is different to the model you are proposing.
As for your three years of history OpenOffice had 15 years of history
on Mercurial before coming to the ASF and Subversion. My point is that
in a foundation the size of the ASF I can almost guarantee you that
any argument you make can be countered with a larger, more experienced
project elsewhere.
LIfe in the ASF is much more than life in a single project.
>> The fact is Git is better at some things
>> and worse at others.
>
> What is it worst at? I think it might help to enumerate some benefits:
These arguments have been had over and over again. You need to step
out of your camp and look at the bigger picture if we are to proceed.
...
> I have not heard any reasoning yet other than its current policy which
> I view with optimism. We will work with you to change that policy. If
> our path to doing that is getting docs written from the Couch project
> then we will immediately begin doing that / participate there. Let me
> know if we can do anything else to expedite things.
Excellent. I concur with Christians comments in reply to this.
> (Thank you again for staying tough on us Ross: we appreciate the help
> in mentorship, and keeping us honest with ourselves and our
> reasoning.)
Thanks for recognising my goal here. It's hard enforcing ASF policies
that I feel need to change. However, I'm not going to push for that
change until we are well equipped, there is simply too much riding on
it.
Much as I want Callback to succeed here at the ASF I am not willing to
put other projects and even the foundation itself at risk for a single
incubating projects desire to break the mould. I've been watching the
Git at the ASF thing unfold for over three years now. The arguments
you put have been made many times over. The situation is simply not as
clear as you seem to think.
For me an insistence on GitHub based entirely on process arguments
that might be in conflict with The Apache Way is a warning sign. By
attempting to demonstrate an understanding of open development through
helping the ASF define community policy towards Git you will go a long
way to discovering if the Apache Way is tight for you.
However, it is not for a single incubator project who, by definition
have not yet fully learned and adopted The Apache Way to dictate how
the foundation should work. The foundation does need to figure out the
git thing, Git is just a tool, but it does not need to change a
development process that works for 150+ projects simply because
Callback feels it should change.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Brian,
what you said on git is all wellknown and many agree with you.
> I have not heard any reasoning yet other than its current policy which
> I view with optimism. We will work with you to change that policy. If
> our path to doing that is getting docs written from the Couch project
> then we will immediately begin doing that / participate there. Let me
> know if we can do anything else to expedite things.
The only way to get git @ asf is to make the CouchDB experiment a success.
This includes writing guides, how git would work in our environment.
This is not trivial, be warned. Because it is not only the technical
aspect which does need to be taken care of, it is also the
social/community aspect.
You can participate and I think you guys should do, as experienced git users.
Please subscribe to dev-subscribe@couchdb.apache.org
CouchDB people already know about the ASF concerns.
See you there,
Christian
>
> (Thank you again for staying tough on us Ross: we appreciate the help
> in mentorship, and keeping us honest with ourselves and our
> reasoning.)
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Hi Ross, answers inline.
> However, don't let this divert the community here from making a case
> for sticking with GitHub whilst being in the incubator. So far no-one
> has answered my questions.
>
> Why is Callback different from all the other projects in the ASF?
PhoneGap has 3 years of history in Git and on Github, Its where our
community is. This is not unique. CouchDB is there as well as many
thousands of free software projects. Moving to SVN would damage our
workflow and our community involvement.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, we have many contributors across
many continents with many differing codebases (PhoneGap uses C++,
Objective C, two flavours of Java, JavaScript). Have a such a
distributed team means there are advantages for distributed RCS. We
*could* use SVN but it would be clumsy, more error prone and slow us
down.
We're not interested in slowing down.
> Why should a special case be made for Callback?
> Saying "git is better" is not enough. We've had that conversation
> hundreds of times already.
This isn't about being a special case, but it is the second project at
ASF built using Git for all the technical benefits that we do not have
to enumerate for you again.
> The fact is Git is better at some things
> and worse at others.
What is it worst at? I think it might help to enumerate some benefits:
- Being centralized isn't a feature for revision control in a free
software project: its a bug. It is more difficult to collaborate on
many disparate branches.
- SVN merging is terrible compared to Git and its far slower, more
error prone. Cheap, fast branching makes for better revision history
and quicker commits.
- Git is faster. The feedback loop is tighter. Cutting code is more
quickly done.
So, there you have it: Git is faster and less error prone. Win.
> It is simply a different technology.
I agree! Its just RCS and from an ASF perspective it should not be a
concern. Given that all technology eventually deprecates as new
technology comes about, it would be better for the longevity of the
ASF to adopt an agnostic stance and support the RCS choices a project,
their community, prefers to use.
We need to use an RCS and we need to keep our IP noses clean. Its
about what we're doing, and not necessarily how we get there. At
least, this is how I view it should be.
> What I, as a
> mentor of this project, want to know is why I should change my opinion
> and fight for Callback to be allowed to stay on GitHub in the interim.
It should remain on Github beyond the interim and we should merge code
from there appropriately. A repo on Github is no different from a repo
on a committers harddrive with the exception that it is indexed for
the world to discover and contribute to not to mention that laundry
list of community features Github supports that a blind repo on a
harddrive, or the ASF, does not.
There is no technical difference, nor legal reasoning, why having the
code on any harddrive would matter. Its the moment of merging into ASF
infrastructure that is crucially important and we are very committed
(pun partially intended) to doing things right.
> I also want to know what will happen if Git is never adopted at the
> ASF.
>From my perspective the ASF will languish over time, lose traction,
developers, committers, and support from the larger free software
community that has moved on from SVN to newer more technically
superior systems. The ASF is not SVN. It transcends the concepts of
revision control and provides the tool for a free software to remain
free, and open.
I have not heard any reasoning yet other than its current policy which
I view with optimism. We will work with you to change that policy. If
our path to doing that is getting docs written from the Couch project
then we will immediately begin doing that / participate there. Let me
know if we can do anything else to expedite things.
(Thank you again for staying tough on us Ross: we appreciate the help
in mentorship, and keeping us honest with ourselves and our
reasoning.)
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com>.
I 've interacted with Apache since '99 - Tomcat, Jasper - and I've stayed
in touch for many years, but unlike folks like Duncan I've never been a
participant in the trenches. I was at Sun when we discussed Hg vs Git (vs
SVN vs CVS). I was a user of Teamware (an early distributed SCM). I've
seen Oracle adopt Git in some new projects and I've advocated Git (and
GitHub) at RIM.
With all those caveats...
* Hg vs Git has been won by Git. Even Atlassian supports Git
* Git is gaining traction everywhere I see. Eclipse just added it.
Java.Net has it.
* Git is impacting the way new developers are approaching the development
cycle. So are some of GitHub's features.
** Most notable for me is that "fork" is no longer a dirty word. Number
of "forks" is now a measure of success in GitHub.
* I believe Git increases participation and communication in any project.
It has done that with all the projects I've seen.
* Git seems compatible with "The Apache Way" as I understand it.
Also, I truly believe ASF needs to support Git or it will loose relevance,
specially among smaller groups and individual develpers. For example, a
major reason why Jenkins didn't go to Apache was the lack of Git support.
I'll subscribe to the CouchDB DEV list to follow the discussion there.
- eduard/o
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
The goal is to demonstrate that The Apache Way can still be successful with
> Git.
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 November 2011 09:07, Michael Brooks <mi...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote:
> @Christian I'm interested in helping the CouchDB guys write Git guidelines
> for ASF - if it's a step towards ASF adopting Git. Thanks for mentioning
> this!
Great.
The only way that we are going to be able to make this work for
Callback is to ensure the CouchDB experiment goes well.
We are not trying to solve the technical problems there, we need to
also look at the community problems that are potentially introduced by
a distributed source control system.
The goal is to demonstrate that The Apache Way can still be successful with Git.
However, don't let this divert the community here from making a case
for sticking with GitHub whilst being in the incubator. So far no-one
has answered my questions.
Why is Callback different from all the other projects in the ASF?
Why should a special case be made for Callback?
Saying "git is better" is not enough. We've had that conversation
hundreds of times already. The fact is Git is better at some things
and worse at others. It is simply a different technology. What I, as a
mentor of this project, want to know is why I should change my opinion
and fight for Callback to be allowed to stay on GitHub in the interim.
I also want to know what will happen if Git is never adopted at the
ASF.
Ross
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
>> > ...I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression
>> > that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus
>> > the confusion/questions on this thread...
>>
>> Let's clarify this: it is currently a requirement for all ASF projects
>> to use svn.apache.org as their code repository.
>>
>> As Jukka suggests, Callback being in incubation can continue to use
>> github for some time, but that prevents the project from graduating to
>> a top-level project, and probably even from making ASF releases (as
>> the ASF releases source code, which has to be hosted on our
>> infrastructure so that we control it).
>>
>> git.apache.org provides "bridges" that allows committers to work with
>> Git, up to a point.
>>
>> The CouchDB project is currently using Git as their main repository,
>> as an experiment which might result in ASF projects being allowed to
>> use either Git or Subversion in the future. We don't know when that
>> might happen. I personally hope that happens soon, but that's just my
>> opinion.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Michael,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Michael Brooks
<mi...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote:
> @Christian I'm interested in helping the CouchDB guys write Git guidelines
> for ASF - if it's a step towards ASF adopting Git. Thanks for mentioning
> this!
see you at: dev@couchdb.apache.org
(subscribe with dev-subscribe@couchdb.apache.org)
I just added myself there too
Cheers,
Christian
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
>> > ...I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression
>> > that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus
>> > the confusion/questions on this thread...
>>
>> Let's clarify this: it is currently a requirement for all ASF projects
>> to use svn.apache.org as their code repository.
>>
>> As Jukka suggests, Callback being in incubation can continue to use
>> github for some time, but that prevents the project from graduating to
>> a top-level project, and probably even from making ASF releases (as
>> the ASF releases source code, which has to be hosted on our
>> infrastructure so that we control it).
>>
>> git.apache.org provides "bridges" that allows committers to work with
>> Git, up to a point.
>>
>> The CouchDB project is currently using Git as their main repository,
>> as an experiment which might result in ASF projects being allowed to
>> use either Git or Subversion in the future. We don't know when that
>> might happen. I personally hope that happens soon, but that's just my
>> opinion.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Michael Brooks <mi...@michaelbrooks.ca>.
@Christian I'm interested in helping the CouchDB guys write Git guidelines
for ASF - if it's a step towards ASF adopting Git. Thanks for mentioning
this!
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
> > ...I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression
> > that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus
> > the confusion/questions on this thread...
>
> Let's clarify this: it is currently a requirement for all ASF projects
> to use svn.apache.org as their code repository.
>
> As Jukka suggests, Callback being in incubation can continue to use
> github for some time, but that prevents the project from graduating to
> a top-level project, and probably even from making ASF releases (as
> the ASF releases source code, which has to be hosted on our
> infrastructure so that we control it).
>
> git.apache.org provides "bridges" that allows committers to work with
> Git, up to a point.
>
> The CouchDB project is currently using Git as their main repository,
> as an experiment which might result in ASF projects being allowed to
> use either Git or Subversion in the future. We don't know when that
> might happen. I personally hope that happens soon, but that's just my
> opinion.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
> ...I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression
> that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus
> the confusion/questions on this thread...
Let's clarify this: it is currently a requirement for all ASF projects
to use svn.apache.org as their code repository.
As Jukka suggests, Callback being in incubation can continue to use
github for some time, but that prevents the project from graduating to
a top-level project, and probably even from making ASF releases (as
the ASF releases source code, which has to be hosted on our
infrastructure so that we control it).
git.apache.org provides "bridges" that allows committers to work with
Git, up to a point.
The CouchDB project is currently using Git as their main repository,
as an experiment which might result in ASF projects being allowed to
use either Git or Subversion in the future. We don't know when that
might happen. I personally hope that happens soon, but that's just my
opinion.
-Bertrand
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Don Coleman <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Switching to subversion would be disruptive. It is not just a matter
> of running a script to convert a repo from git to subversion.
> Switching to subversion fundamentally changes the workflow.
> Git works very well. The ability to fork, edit, and contribute
> patches painlessly is important. Git makes it easy to review and try
> other people's code. The best stuff can be merged. Changes that
> aren't accepted can live on outside the system. Having many forks is
> a strength of git.
> Hopefully we can find a way to make git work in the ASF system for PhoneGap.
Many of us know the strength of git already on technical way. But mind
what Ross wrote. And mind what the git tool might affect in community.
I am with Ross too, there will be no effects. But other think
different and we need to clarify that first.
There is lot of heat and discussion in this currently. And there is a
running experiment with git at the ASF which will not finish before 4
months.
But hey, this is the ASF. If you really want to use git here, you are
all invited to join the party at couchdb-dev and volunteer to help
with writing guidelines "how to use git @ asf".
Cheers
Christian
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
>> My $.02: there is a lot of religion, no doubt, but having worked with both SVN and Git, it is clear to me that Git is much more nimble. I can't give concrete examples why, but that's what I have observed in the past year since I have been exposed to it (after many years of SVN).
>>
>> As such (religion plus real/perceived nimbleness), switching to SVN will likely turn off a number of participants in the current community and slow everything down.
>>
>> One thing highlighted below is a security concern but I am not sure I understand. No matter where things come from, at the end of the day, it all ends up as a pull request which has to be approved before getting into the main repo. I am missing how this is different from current practices.
>>
>> I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus the confusion/questions on this thread.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> LDH (Laurent Hasson)
>> Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform
>> Research In Motion
>> Email: lhasson@rim.com
>> Mobile: 646-460-7066
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> "That's who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rogers!" - Simon Phoenix
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Torch!
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 07:35 PM
>> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org <ca...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
>>
>> I wrote the response below some days ago in the hope that other
>> mentors would leap to the projects defence. However, that has not been
>> the case, so here goes, maybe this will provoke a reaction...
>>
>> On 15 November 2011 17:37, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>> Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
>>> apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
>>> respect to revision control.
>>
>> No need to apologise. It is your champion and then your mentors job to
>> ensure that things are clear.
>>
>>> Git revision control
>>> is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
>>> differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
>>> continents and companies.
>>
>> I think you'll find quite a few projects with "extremely distributed
>> community across continents and companies" here at the ASF. So the
>> latter argument is not relevant. What makes Callback different from
>> all these other projects? How does Callback currently operate that is
>> not possible under SVN with a Git mirror?
>>
>> Apache projects, incubating or otherwise, have very few limitations on
>> the way they operate. Hosting on SVN is one of them.
>>
>>> Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
>>> importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
>>> collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
>>> under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
>>> concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
>>> importing our code into SVN.
>>
>> The ASF does not, and will not, allow software bearing its trademarks
>> to be hosted on any servers other than those under its direct control.
>> This is, in no small part, to ensure the integrity of the software we
>> release. This is not negotiable for Top Level Projects and, as far as
>> I am aware not negotiable for Incubating projects too. There may be
>> scope for a delay in migration, but not an indefinite one.
>>
>>> Moving into ASF infrastructure is
>>> something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
>>> issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
>>> exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
>>> understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
>>> concern.
>>
>> It is not a process concern.
>>
>> With SVN there is a single point of authentication. That point is
>> under the direct control of the ASF infrastructure team. WIth GitHub
>> there is at least one, and possibly many, points of authentication.
>> None of them under the ASFs control. Even when Git is hosted
>> read/write here at the ASF there are potentially authentication points
>> that are no in our control.
>>
>>> Lets look to setting an example that looks forward.
>>
>> I'm afraid this is the wrong way around. It is the ASF that sets the
>> example. That is why people are willing to trust the Apache Brand.
>>
>>> Know too we really
>>> appreciate the guidance here.
>>
>> The ASF is actively working on solving the technical issues relating
>> to Git. Once they are resolved there are community issues to be
>> addressed. Personally I am not concerned about the community issues,
>> they are a matter of process (but many in the ASF are concerned about
>> this).
>>
>> It is quite likely that Callbacks experience with Git will help us
>> resolve these policy issues in the future, however, we can't start
>> solving the community issues until the technical concerns are
>> resolved. Therefore, ASF guidance is to use the infrastructure
>> provided by the ASF.
>>
>>> Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
>>> proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
>>> quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
>>> stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)
>>
>> Until VP Infrastructure informs the board that we are able to safely
>> host Git (and the board accepts this assuramce) I'm afraid the only
>> possible way forward for you is to take your proposal to the IPMC. If
>> you are not satisfied with the outcome then you can escalate to the
>> board if you so desire.
>>
>> However, I am not personally willing to spend my time on this. I do
>> not believe the IPMC will approve. If they do I doubt infra will
>> approve. If they do I doubt the board will. However, this is the ASF,
>> anyone, mentor or otherwise, is free to take this proposal to the IPMC
>> in an attempt to prove me wrong.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>>>>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>>>>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>>>>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>>>>> like this is a unique situation.
>>>>
>>>> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>>>>
>>>> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
>>>> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
>>>> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Don Coleman <do...@gmail.com>.
Switching to subversion would be disruptive. It is not just a matter
of running a script to convert a repo from git to subversion.
Switching to subversion fundamentally changes the workflow.
Git works very well. The ability to fork, edit, and contribute
patches painlessly is important. Git makes it easy to review and try
other people's code. The best stuff can be merged. Changes that
aren't accepted can live on outside the system. Having many forks is
a strength of git.
Hopefully we can find a way to make git work in the ASF system for PhoneGap.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com> wrote:
> My $.02: there is a lot of religion, no doubt, but having worked with both SVN and Git, it is clear to me that Git is much more nimble. I can't give concrete examples why, but that's what I have observed in the past year since I have been exposed to it (after many years of SVN).
>
> As such (religion plus real/perceived nimbleness), switching to SVN will likely turn off a number of participants in the current community and slow everything down.
>
> One thing highlighted below is a security concern but I am not sure I understand. No matter where things come from, at the end of the day, it all ends up as a pull request which has to be approved before getting into the main repo. I am missing how this is different from current practices.
>
> I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus the confusion/questions on this thread.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> LDH (Laurent Hasson)
> Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform
> Research In Motion
> Email: lhasson@rim.com
> Mobile: 646-460-7066
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "That's who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rogers!" - Simon Phoenix
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Torch!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 07:35 PM
> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org <ca...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
>
> I wrote the response below some days ago in the hope that other
> mentors would leap to the projects defence. However, that has not been
> the case, so here goes, maybe this will provoke a reaction...
>
> On 15 November 2011 17:37, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
>> apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
>> respect to revision control.
>
> No need to apologise. It is your champion and then your mentors job to
> ensure that things are clear.
>
>> Git revision control
>> is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
>> differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
>> continents and companies.
>
> I think you'll find quite a few projects with "extremely distributed
> community across continents and companies" here at the ASF. So the
> latter argument is not relevant. What makes Callback different from
> all these other projects? How does Callback currently operate that is
> not possible under SVN with a Git mirror?
>
> Apache projects, incubating or otherwise, have very few limitations on
> the way they operate. Hosting on SVN is one of them.
>
>> Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
>> importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
>> collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
>> under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
>> concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
>> importing our code into SVN.
>
> The ASF does not, and will not, allow software bearing its trademarks
> to be hosted on any servers other than those under its direct control.
> This is, in no small part, to ensure the integrity of the software we
> release. This is not negotiable for Top Level Projects and, as far as
> I am aware not negotiable for Incubating projects too. There may be
> scope for a delay in migration, but not an indefinite one.
>
>> Moving into ASF infrastructure is
>> something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
>> issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
>> exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
>> understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
>> concern.
>
> It is not a process concern.
>
> With SVN there is a single point of authentication. That point is
> under the direct control of the ASF infrastructure team. WIth GitHub
> there is at least one, and possibly many, points of authentication.
> None of them under the ASFs control. Even when Git is hosted
> read/write here at the ASF there are potentially authentication points
> that are no in our control.
>
>> Lets look to setting an example that looks forward.
>
> I'm afraid this is the wrong way around. It is the ASF that sets the
> example. That is why people are willing to trust the Apache Brand.
>
>> Know too we really
>> appreciate the guidance here.
>
> The ASF is actively working on solving the technical issues relating
> to Git. Once they are resolved there are community issues to be
> addressed. Personally I am not concerned about the community issues,
> they are a matter of process (but many in the ASF are concerned about
> this).
>
> It is quite likely that Callbacks experience with Git will help us
> resolve these policy issues in the future, however, we can't start
> solving the community issues until the technical concerns are
> resolved. Therefore, ASF guidance is to use the infrastructure
> provided by the ASF.
>
>> Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
>> proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
>> quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
>> stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)
>
> Until VP Infrastructure informs the board that we are able to safely
> host Git (and the board accepts this assuramce) I'm afraid the only
> possible way forward for you is to take your proposal to the IPMC. If
> you are not satisfied with the outcome then you can escalate to the
> board if you so desire.
>
> However, I am not personally willing to spend my time on this. I do
> not believe the IPMC will approve. If they do I doubt infra will
> approve. If they do I doubt the board will. However, this is the ASF,
> anyone, mentor or otherwise, is free to take this proposal to the IPMC
> in an attempt to prove me wrong.
>
> Ross
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>>>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>>>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>>>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>>>> like this is a unique situation.
>>>
>>> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>>>
>>> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
>>> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>>>
>>> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
>>> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>>
>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:05 AM, eduardo pelegri-llopart
<pe...@calterra.com> wrote:
> Ross writes...
>
>>> Even when Git is hosted read/write here at the ASF there are
>>> potentially authentication points that are no in our control.
>
> Do you have a pointer to where this point is discussed in some detail?
The discussion is spread on several mailinglists. Most important for
you to dive in might be the infrastructure dev list and couchdb-dev
list.
Cheers
>
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by eduardo pelegri-llopart <pe...@calterra.com>.
Ross writes...
>> Even when Git is hosted read/write here at the ASF there are
>> potentially authentication points that are no in our control.
Do you have a pointer to where this point is discussed in some detail?
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Laurent Hasson <lh...@rim.com>.
My $.02: there is a lot of religion, no doubt, but having worked with both SVN and Git, it is clear to me that Git is much more nimble. I can't give concrete examples why, but that's what I have observed in the past year since I have been exposed to it (after many years of SVN).
As such (religion plus real/perceived nimbleness), switching to SVN will likely turn off a number of participants in the current community and slow everything down.
One thing highlighted below is a security concern but I am not sure I understand. No matter where things come from, at the end of the day, it all ends up as a pull request which has to be approved before getting into the main repo. I am missing how this is different from current practices.
I believe many in the PhoneGap community are/were under the impression that Git would remain the project's repo even as we move to Apache, thus the confusion/questions on this thread.
___________________________________________
LDH (Laurent Hasson)
Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform
Research In Motion
Email: lhasson@rim.com
Mobile: 646-460-7066
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"That's who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rogers!" - Simon Phoenix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Torch!
----- Original Message -----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 07:35 PM
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org <ca...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
I wrote the response below some days ago in the hope that other
mentors would leap to the projects defence. However, that has not been
the case, so here goes, maybe this will provoke a reaction...
On 15 November 2011 17:37, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
> apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
> respect to revision control.
No need to apologise. It is your champion and then your mentors job to
ensure that things are clear.
> Git revision control
> is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
> differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
> continents and companies.
I think you'll find quite a few projects with "extremely distributed
community across continents and companies" here at the ASF. So the
latter argument is not relevant. What makes Callback different from
all these other projects? How does Callback currently operate that is
not possible under SVN with a Git mirror?
Apache projects, incubating or otherwise, have very few limitations on
the way they operate. Hosting on SVN is one of them.
> Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
> importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
> collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
> under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
> concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
> importing our code into SVN.
The ASF does not, and will not, allow software bearing its trademarks
to be hosted on any servers other than those under its direct control.
This is, in no small part, to ensure the integrity of the software we
release. This is not negotiable for Top Level Projects and, as far as
I am aware not negotiable for Incubating projects too. There may be
scope for a delay in migration, but not an indefinite one.
> Moving into ASF infrastructure is
> something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
> issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
> exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
> understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
> concern.
It is not a process concern.
With SVN there is a single point of authentication. That point is
under the direct control of the ASF infrastructure team. WIth GitHub
there is at least one, and possibly many, points of authentication.
None of them under the ASFs control. Even when Git is hosted
read/write here at the ASF there are potentially authentication points
that are no in our control.
> Lets look to setting an example that looks forward.
I'm afraid this is the wrong way around. It is the ASF that sets the
example. That is why people are willing to trust the Apache Brand.
> Know too we really
> appreciate the guidance here.
The ASF is actively working on solving the technical issues relating
to Git. Once they are resolved there are community issues to be
addressed. Personally I am not concerned about the community issues,
they are a matter of process (but many in the ASF are concerned about
this).
It is quite likely that Callbacks experience with Git will help us
resolve these policy issues in the future, however, we can't start
solving the community issues until the technical concerns are
resolved. Therefore, ASF guidance is to use the infrastructure
provided by the ASF.
> Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
> proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
> quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
> stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)
Until VP Infrastructure informs the board that we are able to safely
host Git (and the board accepts this assuramce) I'm afraid the only
possible way forward for you is to take your proposal to the IPMC. If
you are not satisfied with the outcome then you can escalate to the
board if you so desire.
However, I am not personally willing to spend my time on this. I do
not believe the IPMC will approve. If they do I doubt infra will
approve. If they do I doubt the board will. However, this is the ASF,
anyone, mentor or otherwise, is free to take this proposal to the IPMC
in an attempt to prove me wrong.
Ross
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>>> like this is a unique situation.
>>
>> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>>
>> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
>> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>>
>> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
>> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I wrote the response below some days ago in the hope that other
mentors would leap to the projects defence. However, that has not been
the case, so here goes, maybe this will provoke a reaction...
On 15 November 2011 17:37, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
> apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
> respect to revision control.
No need to apologise. It is your champion and then your mentors job to
ensure that things are clear.
> Git revision control
> is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
> differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
> continents and companies.
I think you'll find quite a few projects with "extremely distributed
community across continents and companies" here at the ASF. So the
latter argument is not relevant. What makes Callback different from
all these other projects? How does Callback currently operate that is
not possible under SVN with a Git mirror?
Apache projects, incubating or otherwise, have very few limitations on
the way they operate. Hosting on SVN is one of them.
> Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
> importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
> collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
> under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
> concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
> importing our code into SVN.
The ASF does not, and will not, allow software bearing its trademarks
to be hosted on any servers other than those under its direct control.
This is, in no small part, to ensure the integrity of the software we
release. This is not negotiable for Top Level Projects and, as far as
I am aware not negotiable for Incubating projects too. There may be
scope for a delay in migration, but not an indefinite one.
> Moving into ASF infrastructure is
> something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
> issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
> exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
> understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
> concern.
It is not a process concern.
With SVN there is a single point of authentication. That point is
under the direct control of the ASF infrastructure team. WIth GitHub
there is at least one, and possibly many, points of authentication.
None of them under the ASFs control. Even when Git is hosted
read/write here at the ASF there are potentially authentication points
that are no in our control.
> Lets look to setting an example that looks forward.
I'm afraid this is the wrong way around. It is the ASF that sets the
example. That is why people are willing to trust the Apache Brand.
> Know too we really
> appreciate the guidance here.
The ASF is actively working on solving the technical issues relating
to Git. Once they are resolved there are community issues to be
addressed. Personally I am not concerned about the community issues,
they are a matter of process (but many in the ASF are concerned about
this).
It is quite likely that Callbacks experience with Git will help us
resolve these policy issues in the future, however, we can't start
solving the community issues until the technical concerns are
resolved. Therefore, ASF guidance is to use the infrastructure
provided by the ASF.
> Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
> proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
> quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
> stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)
Until VP Infrastructure informs the board that we are able to safely
host Git (and the board accepts this assuramce) I'm afraid the only
possible way forward for you is to take your proposal to the IPMC. If
you are not satisfied with the outcome then you can escalate to the
board if you so desire.
However, I am not personally willing to spend my time on this. I do
not believe the IPMC will approve. If they do I doubt infra will
approve. If they do I doubt the board will. However, this is the ASF,
anyone, mentor or otherwise, is free to take this proposal to the IPMC
in an attempt to prove me wrong.
Ross
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>>> like this is a unique situation.
>>
>> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>>
>> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
>> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>>
>> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
>> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Hey guys, from the Nitobi (now Adobe) side of things we have to
apologize for our ignorance of the current reasoning at ASF with
respect to revision control. It was our intention to make SVN read
only and use Git for regular dev as we have been since the project
inception. It is a topic we hope to cooperatively explore, and
educate, on our experiences with. In short, Git, and by extension
Github have been pivotal in our community growth, adoption, and
contribution. The solution is not to ignore the history and simply
move to SVN --- it would be detrimental to our community and that is,
I'm certain we all agree, our greatest strength. Additionally, this is
an opportunity to really show the world a more nimble ASF.
Rather than strong language about voting in and/or out we'd rather a
discussion around the specific points of contention. Our community,
and contributors, all use and expect Git support. Git revision control
is remarkably well suited to a project like PhoneGap, with many
differing codebases, and an extremely distributed community across
continents and companies.
Technical benefits aside, security and ASF compliance are paramount of
importance to not only Adobe but IBM, Microsoft and RIM. It is in our
collective benefit to see the PhoneGap project to continue to succeed
under the stewardship of the ASF. Everything we can do to address
concerns we will do and we are very certain the solution is not bulk
importing our code into SVN. Moving into ASF infrastructure is
something we want to dedicate resources to so this shouldn't be an
issue. Security with concern to IP should not be any more of an
exception under Git than it is under SVN to the best of my technical
understanding but this sounds more like something of a process
concern. I know we have tools at Adobe to look at this --- I am
certain our other contributors do too.
Lets look to setting an example that looks forward. Know too we really
appreciate the guidance here. Ross/Jukka/Christian how should we best
proceed to make sure this is resolved in the ASF process? (But
quickly! We want to get back to business cutting code and not be
stumbling around on things like rcs!!!)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
>> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
>> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
>> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
>> like this is a unique situation.
>
> Until I asked them to do something about that.
>
> There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
> there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
>
> Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
> source code into the ASF servers directly.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
> outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
> rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
> repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
> like this is a unique situation.
Until I asked them to do something about that.
There was discussion already about longtime podlings and I feel that
there is some movement between ipmc people to clean up.
Honestly I think that Wave has lost lots steam with not bringing their
source code into the ASF servers directly.
Cheers,
Christian
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> There is no guarantee of Git support ever being provided.
We can always revisit the plan should it become obvious that the ASF
is not going to support Git any time soon.
On the other hand as long as it's likely or at least possible that the
ASF will start offering canonical Git repositories within say next
year, there's little point in migrating to Subversion only to switch
back to Git in a few months, especially since the Git-to-Subversion
loses history even with the git2svn script I created for this purpose
(to my knowledge it's the most advanced Git-to-Subversion mapping
currently available).
IMHO it's better to wait and see for now and revise the plan as the
outcome of the CouchDB experiment becomes clearer. There's no need to
rush things. For example Apache Wave worked with their original Git
repositories for over a year after entering the Incubator, so it's not
like this is a unique situation.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
sorry that I have missed the email mentioned here:
>> See http://markmail.org/message/4sovlo3p7nxngwy3 for the summary of
>> the discussion from a few weeks ago.
I had other things to deal with, as mentioned on private@.
Until I saw Ross e-mail to infra, I was under the impression Callback
is preparing to use Jukkas git2svn tool from github.
Unfortunately I cannot find any arguments on this because the
mentioned e-mail is referring to a call.
>> The consensus within the team seemed to be that they'll rather wait
>> for full Git support to become available than switch to svn now only
>> to switch back to Git later on.
>
> There is no guarantee of Git support ever being provided. There are
> significant IP management and technical issues to be addressed before
> Apache projects will be allowed to use Git. There is an experiment
> underway right now which, if successful will allow read/write Git to
> be provided for all ASF projects. However, there is no guarantee of
> the experiment being successful and no timescales are provided.
In addition, there are not only ip/technical issues, we simply don't
have any experience if the git-way is compatible with the apache-way
from community perspective.
> The incubation proposal that created this PPMC was voted for on the
> basis that the code would move to SVN [1] and I feel that the result
> of the vote would have been quite different if this had not been the
> case.
>
> I see no discussion from other mentors on the thread linked above, is
> this an accepted proposal? Speaking as a mentor, I suggest that
> without approval from the wider IPMC this proposal is not acceptable.
Even when I would love to see git finally arrive at the ASF, I must +1
what Ross said.
Git is not ready yet and nobody can tell if it will be ready next year
or in 2013 or never. Incubation will not succeed as long as the source
code is not in the asf repositories. As I could see with the Wave
podling source repositories outside the asf lead to much confusion and
pain.
Anyway you guys might want to bring this up to the IPMC directly. If
they support it, they (and you) will need to convince infra and the
board. There was such a discussion recently and there was not so much
support for this.
Cheers
Christian
>
> Ross
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.phonegap.com/w/page/46311152/apache-callback-proposal
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 15 November 2011 14:03, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> I'm not seeing any plans for migrating the Callback source to SVN. Can
>> you please tell us where we are at with this critical step to entering
>> incubation.
>
> See http://markmail.org/message/4sovlo3p7nxngwy3 for the summary of
> the discussion from a few weeks ago.
Apologies for not being on this list at that time. For some reason I
only subscribed to the private list until a few days ago.
> The consensus within the team seemed to be that they'll rather wait
> for full Git support to become available than switch to svn now only
> to switch back to Git later on.
There is no guarantee of Git support ever being provided. There are
significant IP management and technical issues to be addressed before
Apache projects will be allowed to use Git. There is an experiment
underway right now which, if successful will allow read/write Git to
be provided for all ASF projects. However, there is no guarantee of
the experiment being successful and no timescales are provided.
The ASF already provides Git mirrors of Subversion for read only support.
The incubation proposal that created this PPMC was voted for on the
basis that the code would move to SVN [1] and I feel that the result
of the vote would have been quite different if this had not been the
case.
I see no discussion from other mentors on the thread linked above, is
this an accepted proposal? Speaking as a mentor, I suggest that
without approval from the wider IPMC this proposal is not acceptable.
Ross
[1] http://wiki.phonegap.com/w/page/46311152/apache-callback-proposal
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Plans for migrating to SVN?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> I'm not seeing any plans for migrating the Callback source to SVN. Can
> you please tell us where we are at with this critical step to entering
> incubation.
See http://markmail.org/message/4sovlo3p7nxngwy3 for the summary of
the discussion from a few weeks ago.
The consensus within the team seemed to be that they'll rather wait
for full Git support to become available than switch to svn now only
to switch back to Git later on.
BR,
Jukka Zitting