You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> on 2023/05/03 19:12:29 UTC
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
<de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>
>
> +1.
>
> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>
> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
"vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
it.
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:31:35PM -0500, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> I am +1 on moving. I do not have any particular love for git or svn on their
> own, and I realize that the proposed change does make outside contributions
> and certain workflows easier.
+1 for the same reasons here. Might be better to call a formal VOTE
thread on this with a clearer Subject.
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2023-05-03 14:12, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
> <de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
>> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>>
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>
>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
>
> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>
> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
> it.
I am +1 on moving. I do not have any particular love for git or svn on
their own, and I realize that the proposed change does make outside
contributions and certain workflows easier.
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by gi...@paclan.it.
On 5/3/23 23:03, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
>> <de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>>> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>>> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>>> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
>>> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>>> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>>
>>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
>>
>> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
>> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>>
>> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
>> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
>> it.
>>
>
> svn or git both fit my needs.
>
> git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support it, but not the one I use)
>
> github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.
>
> git/github would also make the project more attractive for others contributions I think.
>
> So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake of the project.
>
+1 for me to switch to git, code review will be easier.
Just a question, how will security diffs be managed in Github ?
Giovanni
> Just my 2c,
>
> CJ
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by Nilgün Belma Bugüner <ni...@gmail.com>.
4.05.2023 10:25 tarihinde Stefan Eissing via dev yazdı:
>
>> Am 03.05.2023 um 23:03 schrieb Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>:
>>
>> Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
>>> <de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>>>> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>>>> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>>>> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
>>>> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>>>> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>>>
>>>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
>>> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
>>> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>>> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
>>> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
>>> it.
>> svn or git both fit my needs.
>>
>> git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support it, but not the one I use)
>>
>> github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.
>>
>> git/github would also make the project more attractive for others contributions I think.
>>
>> So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake of the project.
> Many +1s
>
>> Just my 2c,
>>
>> CJ
Svn to git +1
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by Stefan Eissing via dev <de...@httpd.apache.org>.
> Am 03.05.2023 um 23:03 schrieb Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>:
>
> Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
>> <de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>>> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>>> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>>> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
>>> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>>> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>>
>>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
>> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
>> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
>> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
>> it.
>
> svn or git both fit my needs.
>
> git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support it, but not the one I use)
>
> github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.
>
> git/github would also make the project more attractive for others contributions I think.
>
> So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake of the project.
Many +1s
>
> Just my 2c,
>
> CJ
Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
> <de...@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>> overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>> We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>> Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check if all of the current active committers are fine
>> using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>> Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if active committers would have issues with Github.
>>
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>
>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals change at any time and without warning.
>
> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>
> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
> it.
>
svn or git both fit my needs.
git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily
commit only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients
also support it, but not the one I use)
github is great because it can be used for code review without the need
to commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ...
cleanly before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.
git/github would also make the project more attractive for others
contributions I think.
So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the
sake of the project.
Just my 2c,
CJ