You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> on 2013/10/10 16:50:17 UTC
[VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
All,
We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
+1 - yes, move to Git
-1 - no, do not move to Git
The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
+1
let's move on step by step.
On 10 Oct 2013, at 16:50, James Carman wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>.
On 10.10.13 16:50, James Carman wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
-1
I don't see any advantages.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
+1 to git in general, however, I also prefer the approach to do the move
in a more careful way, i.e. experimenting with single components first.
Oliver
Am 10.10.2013 16:50, schrieb James Carman:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
We could migrate our new release testing project (commons-canary :)
first. Get the kinks worked out using it. Then, we migrate the rest
of the projects.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 10/10/2013 19:27, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit :
>> -1 (binding), it's a big change, so let's try Mark's idea of one
>> component first.
>
> +1. I see a lot of advantages. The first one is in branches merging
> which could help for experimental stuff, the second is in getting
> contributions (for example large ones like that of Evan), and the third
> is in the use tooling.
>
> But I also agree a first step with one component would be easier for
> most people. Git is not simple to learn.
>
> Luc
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>
>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>
>>> -1. I'm not convinced that the implications have been fully thought
>>> through (the web site has to remain on svn for example) nor that this
>>> migration will solve the problems it aims to solve.
>>>
>>> I'd be much happier with doing a trial with one component first before
>>> starting a wholesale migration.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 10/10/2013 19:27, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit :
> -1 (binding), it's a big change, so let's try Mark's idea of one
> component first.
+1. I see a lot of advantages. The first one is in branches merging
which could help for experimental stuff, the second is in getting
contributions (for example large ones like that of Evan), and the third
is in the use tooling.
But I also agree a first step with one component would be easier for
most people. Git is not simple to learn.
Luc
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>
>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>
>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>
>> -1. I'm not convinced that the implications have been fully thought
>> through (the web site has to remain on svn for example) nor that this
>> migration will solve the problems it aims to solve.
>>
>> I'd be much happier with doing a trial with one component first before
>> starting a wholesale migration.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@gmail.com>.
-1 (binding), it's a big change, so let's try Mark's idea of one
component first.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>
>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>
>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> -1. I'm not convinced that the implications have been fully thought
> through (the web site has to remain on svn for example) nor that this
> migration will solve the problems it aims to solve.
>
> I'd be much happier with doing a trial with one component first before
> starting a wholesale migration.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I am +1 on using git but I won't be able to help with the changes that will need to be made so I am voting +0.
FWIW, I don't think git really "solves" anything. It will fix a perception problem and it will make it easier to do distributed development.
Ralph
On Oct 10, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>
>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>
>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> -1. I'm not convinced that the implications have been fully thought
> through (the web site has to remain on svn for example) nor that this
> migration will solve the problems it aims to solve.
>
> I'd be much happier with doing a trial with one component first before
> starting a wholesale migration.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
-1. I'm not convinced that the implications have been fully thought
through (the web site has to remain on svn for example) nor that this
migration will solve the problems it aims to solve.
I'd be much happier with doing a trial with one component first before
starting a wholesale migration.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
we already have the mirrors for all proper components, so we probably will
only have to deal with sandbox and the site/build stuff.
I'll help where I can.
2013/10/10 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
The "binding" annotations on this thread kind of bug me here - we
should be deciding this kind of thing by community consensus.
"Binding" is only meaningful in release votes and VOTE-ing in
general should be a last resort rather than early step in getting to
consensus. I have tried to keep up with the threads but have yet to
see a really clear rationale for the move. It would help me
personally get on board with allocating some of my own scarce
volunteering time to this if I someone could summarize what exactly
we will get out of it.
Phil
On 10/10/13 7:50 AM, James Carman wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1 - yes, move to Git
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/10/10 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> Here's my +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, James Carman
> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> > think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >
> > +1 - yes, move to Git
> > -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >
> > The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Here's my +1 (binding)
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
+1
Gary
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita
<br...@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> Looks like I've voted on the wrong thread, here's my vote
>
> +1
>
> Bruno P. Kinoshita
> http://kinoshita.eti.br
> http://tupilabs.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> To: Commons Developers List <de...@commons.apache.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:50 AM
>> Subject: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
>>
>> All,
>>
>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>
>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>
>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <br...@yahoo.com.br>.
Looks like I've voted on the wrong thread, here's my vote
+1
Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
----- Original Message -----
> From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> To: Commons Developers List <de...@commons.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
>
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Dave Brosius <db...@apache.org>.
in the spirit of better late than never
+1 - yes, move to Git
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
James,
You succeeded in creating a second thread.
It is the first thread that had a reverted subject line. Ironically, it
was one of your posts that reverted the subject line ... likely related to
the confusion you had in the first place with gmail.
Check the archives. They show the subject lines.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> There were two threads. As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
> threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
> for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> > > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3EfromwhichI quote below:
> > >
> > > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> > > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > > agree).
> > >
> > > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> > HTTP
> > > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > > other set of bylaws."
> > > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> > > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
> everyone
> > > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> > be
> > > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> > >
> > > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> > says
> > > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> > the
> > > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or
> > a
> > > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> > > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > > >
> > > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > > > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > > > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > > > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > > > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> > > >
> > > > I got this information from:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > > >
> > > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > > > your concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see
> it
> > > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1s
> > > >>> James Carman
> > > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >>> Matt Benson
> > > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > > >>> Gary Gregory
> > > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > > >>> Oliver Heger
> > > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -1s
> > > >>> Mark Thomas
> > > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0.5
> > > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0
> > > >>> Ralph Goers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -0
> > > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
> We
> > > >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page
> for
> > > >>> that.
> > > >>
> > > >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > > >> clearly not the c
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
There were two threads. As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >
> > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > agree).
> >
> > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > other set of bylaws."
> > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
> > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >
> > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or
> a
> > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > >
> > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> > >
> > > I got this information from:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > >
> > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > > your concerns.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > >>>
> > >>> +1s
> > >>> James Carman
> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>> Matt Benson
> > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > >>> Gary Gregory
> > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > >>> Oliver Heger
> > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > >>>
> > >>> -1s
> > >>> Mark Thomas
> > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > >>>
> > >>> +0.5
> > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > >>>
> > >>> +0
> > >>> Ralph Goers
> > >>>
> > >>> -0
> > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> > >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> > >>> that.
> > >>
> > >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > >> clearly not the c
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
OK - sorry for misunderstanding you. It appears we are in agreement and my use of "majority" in that sentence is incorrect. The wording I quoted from the httpd page is much clearer (at least 3 +1 votes and no vetoes).
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.
>
> But where you say
>
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.
>
>
> I disagree. The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
> 3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
>> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point
>> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
>> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
>> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
>>> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>>>
>>> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
>>> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
>> git).
>>> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>>>
>>> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
>>> votes.
>>>
>>> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
>> problem.
>>> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
>>> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
>>> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
>>> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
>>> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
>>> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>>>
>>> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
>> the
>>> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
>>> subject a number of times:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
>> General
>>>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>>>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>>>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
>> things
>>>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>>>> agree).
>>>>
>>>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
>> HTTP
>>>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>>>> other set of bylaws."
>>>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
>> there
>>>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
>> everyone
>>>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
>> be
>>>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
>> says
>>>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>>>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
>> the
>>>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
>> or a
>>>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
>> git
>>>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>>>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>>>
>>>>> I got this information from:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>>>> your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1s
>>>>>>> James Carman
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1s
>>>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>>>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
>> big
>>>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
>> fun
>>>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>>>> back.
>>>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
>> BU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>>>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Ralph,
I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.
But where you say
As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.
I disagree. The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point
> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> >> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >>
> >> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> >> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> >> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> >> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> >> agree).
> >>
> >> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> >> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> >> other set of bylaws."
> >> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> >> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
> everyone
> >> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> >> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >>
> >> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> >> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> >> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> >> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or a
> >> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> >> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> >> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Phil,
> >>>
> >>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >>>
> >>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> >>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> >>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> >>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> >>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> >>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> >>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> >>>
> >>> I got this information from:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>>
> >>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> >>> (consensus != unanimous).
> >>>
> >>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> >>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> >>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> >>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> >>> your concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
> >>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>>>> everyone's vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
> all
> >>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> >> too
> >>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> >> releasing a
> >>>>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
> big
> >>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> >> have
> >>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
> >> problem is
> >>>>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> >> ready
> >>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
> >> the
> >>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
> fun
> >>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> >> back.
> >>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
> BU.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> >> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/13/13 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
Get real, Ted. The thread had diverged into general discussion. I
did not see it as a serious VOTE at that point and I stand by my
statements that any assertion that it established "consensus" is
incorrect.
Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Ralph,
Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
votes.
That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
This is the point that Phil first commented.
On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
subject a number of times:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>
> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> agree).
>
> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> other set of bylaws."
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>
> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >
> > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> >
> > I got this information from:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > (consensus != unanimous).
> >
> > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > your concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>
> >>> +1s
> >>> James Carman
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> Matt Benson
> >>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>> Gary Gregory
> >>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>> Oliver Heger
> >>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>
> >>> -1s
> >>> Mark Thomas
> >>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>
> >>> +0.5
> >>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>
> >>> +0
> >>> Ralph Goers
> >>>
> >>> -0
> >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>
> >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
> >>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>> everyone's vote.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> too
> >>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> releasing a
> >>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> have
> >>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
> problem is
> >>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> ready
> >>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
> the
> >>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> back.
> >>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
> >>>>
> >>>> Benedikt
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> >>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3E from which I quote below:
"Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively agree).
Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some other set of bylaws."
As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>
> I got this information from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
>
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>>
>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
IMO (and it is just my opinion), all commons projects should eventually move to git. The problem is that commons is more a disjoint group of small, fairly unrelated projects than a true umbrella project. As such, it might make more sense for a few projects to move before moving everything.
I'd be surprised if anyone questions your motives in this. I certainly don't. So I don't think you need to justify starting a vote, even if it might be premature.
As for standardization, my opinion is that projects should be as standard as possible. That said, I found when working on VFS that at the time it was the only multi-module project and stuff other projects were doing in the build simply didn't work. So some amount of flexibility is required.
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:30 PM, James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
>> seeing if we can actually get consensus. I stand by my statement
>> above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
>> perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
>> VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
>>
>
> I will concede that the VOTE may have been a bit premature, judging by
> the type of resistance we have to this move. Although, in my defense,
> there are other projects already successfully using Git and they are
> alive-and-well, so I didn't think in a million years that the
> opposition would be based on feasibility of git. SVN may be the most
> widely used, but my understanding is Git is definitely the most
> popular (meaning a lot of people on SVN wish they could switch to
> Git). My intent was not to splinter or fracture the community. On
> the contrary, I brought this up hoping to *grow* the community. Also,
> most of the dissenting opinions were expressed after the VOTE was
> started. The original discussion thread was open for three days
> before the VOTE was started.
>
>> Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
>> standardization are we going to force on components. My view is
>> less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
>> at once or even ever done uniformly.
>>
>
> Yeah, I don't know how I feel about this one, especially when it comes
> to SCM. I agree that we may need to be a little more loosey-goosey
> with our "rules" that are project-wide (I consider myself a closest to
> a libertarian :). There have to be some things we stay consistent,
> on, though. Otherwise, why are we all grouped together, then? If we
> get too loose, then it makes it difficult for folks to jump in on
> another component and help out if they get an urge (if one of my math
> books falls of the shelf and hits me in the head and I get some
> inspiration).
>
>> Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
>> Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
>> consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
>> good thing to spend time on. I just don't think its fair to those
>> who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
>> VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
>> move everything.
>>
>
> It would be great if you want to lend us a hand with the test
> component we're creating in git, to help us iron out the workflow. It
> might be a bit cheaper than moving [math] and trying to figure out how
> to do releases. Might be more fun, too, since we're starting "green
> field" :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
> seeing if we can actually get consensus. I stand by my statement
> above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
> perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
> VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
>
I will concede that the VOTE may have been a bit premature, judging by
the type of resistance we have to this move. Although, in my defense,
there are other projects already successfully using Git and they are
alive-and-well, so I didn't think in a million years that the
opposition would be based on feasibility of git. SVN may be the most
widely used, but my understanding is Git is definitely the most
popular (meaning a lot of people on SVN wish they could switch to
Git). My intent was not to splinter or fracture the community. On
the contrary, I brought this up hoping to *grow* the community. Also,
most of the dissenting opinions were expressed after the VOTE was
started. The original discussion thread was open for three days
before the VOTE was started.
> Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
> standardization are we going to force on components. My view is
> less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
> at once or even ever done uniformly.
>
Yeah, I don't know how I feel about this one, especially when it comes
to SCM. I agree that we may need to be a little more loosey-goosey
with our "rules" that are project-wide (I consider myself a closest to
a libertarian :). There have to be some things we stay consistent,
on, though. Otherwise, why are we all grouped together, then? If we
get too loose, then it makes it difficult for folks to jump in on
another component and help out if they get an urge (if one of my math
books falls of the shelf and hits me in the head and I get some
inspiration).
> Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
> Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
> consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
> good thing to spend time on. I just don't think its fair to those
> who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
> VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
> move everything.
>
It would be great if you want to lend us a hand with the test
component we're creating in git, to help us iron out the workflow. It
might be a bit cheaper than moving [math] and trying to figure out how
to do releases. Might be more fun, too, since we're starting "green
field" :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/13/13 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>
> I got this information from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
>
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.
As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
seeing if we can actually get consensus. I stand by my statement
above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
standardization are we going to force on components. My view is
less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
at once or even ever done uniformly.
Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
good thing to spend time on. I just don't think its fair to those
who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
move everything.
Phil
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> Phil
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Phil,
While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
"Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
I got this information from:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
(consensus != unanimous).
However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
your concerns.
Thanks,
James
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>
>> +1s
>> James Carman
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Matt Benson
>> Benedikt Ritter
>> Bruno Kinoshita
>> Gary Gregory
>> Luc Maisonobe
>> Oliver Heger
>> Christian Grobmeier
>> Torsten Curdt
>>
>> -1s
>> Mark Thomas
>> Thomas Vandahl
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>> Gilles Sadowski
>> Jorg Schaible
>>
>> +0.5
>> Olivier Lamy
>>
>> +0
>> Ralph Goers
>>
>> -0
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>> that.
>
> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>> everyone's vote.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>> http://github.com/britter
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 16 Oct 2013, at 22:46, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>>> component
>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>>> should be
>>> forced to switch to git.
>>
>> I had the idea too and support it.
>
> Great. Then the three of us at least all agree. What I was
> protesting was the conclusion that we had consensus to move all
> components.
Not sure if i was perfectly clear:
I voted to move all components sooner or later to git. Not all at once.
But to start with one, try things out, learn and finally moving on with
the others one by one.
BUT if some maintainers of a component really have a problem with git,
I am of course accepting they are using svn while others can use git.
My impression is that most people who are working as team on a single
component
have a similar vision on the scm.
Usually I would now open a vote to see if we all agree.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I
>>>>> see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for
>>>>> SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki
>>>>> page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but
>>>> if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and
>>>> that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the
>>>> VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>
>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>
>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this
>> change.
>>
>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being
>> "bulldozed through".
>
> I disagree.
>
> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a
> red button on friday
> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a
> general decision and
> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in
> a single day.
>
> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to
> move? I think we should
> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move
> a single component.
> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger
> loss or discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We
> just wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>
> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where
>> there
>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>
>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component
>> volunteers to
>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that
>> component
>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch
>> starts. If
>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have
>> to deal
>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> I have not understood it otherwise.
> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>> component
>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>> should be
>> forced to switch to git.
>
> I had the idea too and support it.
Great. Then the three of us at least all agree. What I was
protesting was the conclusion that we had consensus to move all
components.
Phil
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 16 Oct 2013, at 23:14, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to
>> move? I
>> think we should
>> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of
> consensus.
Which is sometimes pretty difficult with a PMC of that size.
> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move.
> The
> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
> Commons from svn to git.
Sure, thats the goal: "Move Commons to GIT". But it doesn't imply the
actual steps. It didn't say anything of "switch all components" at once.
> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to
> Git
> for SCM".
Sure, it will not do that. Commons will most likely never move to GIT
and stay where it is.
>
>> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
>> single component.
>> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss
>> or
>> discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
Come on. Nobody said we move all components at once. In some thread it
was also
said its around little steps first. James requested a single
experimental
git repository.
That aside: even when we would have successfully voted on GIT, do you
really
believe you have zero influence on how it is done? Do you think James
would have requested the move of all Commons components at once without
telling us?
This is not how our community worked or works.
>> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
>> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>>
>> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
> such a move.
Aha ok.
So in my ears it didn't sound so bulldozing. He tallied up the votes and
draw a conclusion.
Bulldozing is to request all git repositories at once at Infra. Luckily
that kind
of bulldozing can be stopped.
>> I have not understood it otherwise.
>> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was
> driving
> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least)
> anything
> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
I don't see it like that.
For me it was a general question without implying any real plan.
And again: if there would have been such a misunderstanding we could
have
fixed that after we decided if we move to GIT or not.
>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>>> component
>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>>> should be
>>> forced to switch to git.
>>
>> I had the idea too and support it.
>
> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was
> being
> voted on.
>
> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the
> svn
> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors
> give
> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure
> that
> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
Ok.
Cheers
Christian
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/16/13 2:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1s
>>>>>>> James Carman
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1s
>>>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>>>>
>>>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
>>>> through".
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
>>> button on friday
>>> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
>>> decision and
>>> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
>>> single day.
>>>
>>> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
>>> think we should
>>> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.
>>
>> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
>> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
>> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
>> Commons from svn to git.
>>
>> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
>> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
>> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
>> for SCM".
>>
>
> Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let
> whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?
+1
Phil
>
> Gary
>
>
>>> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
>>> single component.
>>> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
>>> discuss what needs to be improved.
>> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
>> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
>>
>>> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
>>> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>>>
>>> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
>> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
>> such a move.
>>
>>>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
>>>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>>>
>>>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
>>>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
>>>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
>>>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
>>>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>>> I have not understood it otherwise.
>>> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
>> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
>> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
>> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
>>
>>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
>>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
>>>> forced to switch to git.
>>> I had the idea too and support it.
>> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
>> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
>> voted on.
>>
>> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
>> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
>> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
>> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
>> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
>> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 16/10/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let
> whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?
I think ignoring the consensus issue and why the discussion and vote
failed to gain consensus would be to lose an opportunity to learn some
valuable lessons that might help the next time there is a proposal to
change something common to all the components.
That said...
I have no objection to one component testing out the git to svn move
providing that there is consensus to do so amongst the active developers
of that component. Further, based on what I have seen to far in this
thread, I don't think anyone else would object either.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> > On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
> >>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>
> >>> I agree entirely with Phil.
> >>>
> >>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
> >>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
> >>
> >> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
> >>
> >> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
> >> through".
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
> > button on friday
> > and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
> > decision and
> > it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
> > single day.
> >
> > Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
> > think we should
> > first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.
>
> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
> Commons from svn to git.
>
> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM".
>
Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let
whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?
Gary
>
> > It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
> > single component.
> > If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
> > discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
>
> > We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
> > wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
> >
> > I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
> such a move.
>
> >> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
> >> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
> >>
> >> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> >> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
> >> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> >> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
> >> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
> >
> > I have not understood it otherwise.
> > Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
>
> >> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> >> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
> >> forced to switch to git.
> >
> > I had the idea too and support it.
>
> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
> voted on.
>
> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>
>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>
>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>>
>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
>> through".
>
> I disagree.
>
> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
> button on friday
> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
> decision and
> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
> single day.
>
> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
> think we should
> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.
The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
Commons from svn to git.
The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
for SCM".
> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
> single component.
> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
> discuss what needs to be improved.
That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>
> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
such a move.
>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>
>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> I have not understood it otherwise.
> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
>> forced to switch to git.
>
> I had the idea too and support it.
At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
voted on.
I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see
>>>> it
>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>
>>>> +1s
>>>> James Carman
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> Matt Benson
>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>
>>>> -1s
>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>
>>>> +0.5
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>
>>>> +0
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
>>>> We
>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page
>>>> for
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>
>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>
> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>
> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
> through".
I disagree.
We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
button on friday
and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
decision and
it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
single day.
Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
think we should
first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
single component.
If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
discuss what needs to be improved.
We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where
> there
> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>
> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that
> component
> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to
> deal
> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
I have not understood it otherwise.
Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should
> be
> forced to switch to git.
I had the idea too and support it.
Cheers
Christian
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>
> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>
> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>
> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
> to change?
The best thing to change for me will be:
- I'll pay attention to Git pull requests. Right now, I do not because I
cannot simply download a patch from JIRA and use my IDE to apply it. I just
do not want to be bothered with reformatting the pull request or fiddling
with the git command line (or GitHub site) until I get git to create a diff
file SVN will digest.
- I'll be able to stash work in progress to address for urgent tasks. No
more creating a patch, saving it some place, getting a clean sandbox,
applying another patch and so on.
The other stuff will be the same but done differently (Maven magic,
day-to-day commits).
Gary
> The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
> from trunks-proper?
>
> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>
> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
> along the way :)
>
> ---
>
> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>
> > So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
> > settled right?
> > On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this
> vote?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Apache voting rules are documented at
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page
> doesn't
> > > define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
> > >
> > > It's defined in the glossary:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
> this thread to be 'argued' by
> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
> test project request in INFRA, and
> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
> have a beer, and enjoy.
Well said. This thread perfectly feeds back into the "what's wrong with
commons" thread.
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Benedikt Ritter <be...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Hen,
>
> Send from my mobile device
>
> > Am 17.10.2013 um 08:24 schrieb Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
> > have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink
> though.
> >
> > Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
> > Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel
> issues
> > at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
> > patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to
> deploy
> > the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and
> > restart.
>
> With git you can stash changes AND work in local branches (or push local
> branches with history to your remote). Stashing is btw supported by some
> IDE without SCM at all (I think idea can do it). Nevertheless I agree with
> you, that this is a big + for git.
>
> I'd say we push out lang 3.2 and use lang as a test project, if all of
> lang's developers can agree on this.
>
> <de...@commons.apache.org>
>
I'm up for that. I'll play the role of a clueless newbie, just for the sake
of testing you understand. :)
Hen
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <be...@gmail.com>.
Hi Hen,
Send from my mobile device
> Am 17.10.2013 um 08:24 schrieb Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>
> Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
> have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.
>
> Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
> Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues
> at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
> patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy
> the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and
> restart.
With git you can stash changes AND work in local branches (or push local branches with history to your remote). Stashing is btw supported by some IDE without SCM at all (I think idea can do it). Nevertheless I agree with you, that this is a big + for git.
I'd say we push out lang 3.2 and use lang as a test project, if all of lang's developers can agree on this.
Benedikt
>
> Hen
>
>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <db...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
>> this thread to be 'argued' by
>> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
>> test project request in INFRA, and
>> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
>> have a beer, and enjoy.
>>
>>
>>> On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator
>>> of
>>> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this
>>> is
>>> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>>>
>>> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>>>
>>> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference
>>> for
>>> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>>>
>>> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
>>> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
>>> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
>>> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
>>> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
>>> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
>>> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
>>> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
>>> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to
>>> putting
>>> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
>>> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
>>> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
>>> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we
>>> move
>>> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
>>> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
>>> from trunks-proper?
>>>
>>> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
>>> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
>>> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However
>>> this
>>> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
>>> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
>>> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>>>
>>> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question.
>>> We're
>>> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
>>> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
>>> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
>>> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
>>> along the way :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
>>> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
>>> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
>>> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
>>> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
>>> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
>>> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>>>
>>> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>>>> settled right?
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>.
>>>>> However, that page doesn't
>>>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.
Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues
at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy
the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and
restart.
Hen
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <db...@apache.org> wrote:
> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
> this thread to be 'argued' by
> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
> test project request in INFRA, and
> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
> have a beer, and enjoy.
>
>
> On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator
>> of
>> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this
>> is
>> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>>
>> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>>
>> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference
>> for
>> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>>
>> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
>> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
>> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
>> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
>> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
>> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
>> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
>> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
>> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to
>> putting
>> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
>> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
>> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
>> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we
>> move
>> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
>> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
>> from trunks-proper?
>>
>> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
>> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
>> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However
>> this
>> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
>> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
>> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>>
>> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question.
>> We're
>> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
>> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
>> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
>> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
>> along the way :)
>>
>> ---
>>
>> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
>> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
>> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
>> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
>> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
>> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
>> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>>
>> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>>> settled right?
>>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>.
>>>> However, that page doesn't
>>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>>
>>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<de...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Dave Brosius <db...@apache.org>.
Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
this thread to be 'argued' by
those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled
the test project request in INFRA, and
so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
have a beer, and enjoy.
On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>
> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>
> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>
> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
> from trunks-proper?
>
> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>
> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
> along the way :)
>
> ---
>
> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>
>> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>> settled right?
>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>
>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>
>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
to do with code, it's not code itself.
I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
(acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
from trunks-proper?
Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
along the way :)
---
An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
in the choice of system being interacted with.
Hen
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
> settled right?
> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Apache voting rules are documented at
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
> > define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
> >
> > It's defined in the glossary:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Ring <sj...@jdns.org>.
So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
settled right?
On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> >
> >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
> >>
> >
> > Apache voting rules are documented at
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>
> It's defined in the glossary:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>
>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>
>
> Apache voting rules are documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
It's defined in the glossary:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>
Apache voting rules are documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
In short, a consensus vote requires at least 3 +1 votes and no -1 votes from PMC members. Quorum was not an issue (and rarely is with a PMC as large as Commons').
Ralph
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Ring <sj...@jdns.org>.
Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>
>>>> +1s
>>>> James Carman
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> Matt Benson
>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>
>>>> -1s
>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>
>>>> +0.5
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>
>>>> +0
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>
>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>
> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>
> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed through".
>
> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>
> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
> forced to switch to git.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>>
>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>
> I agree entirely with Phil.
>
> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed through".
I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
forced to switch to git.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>
>> +1s
>> James Carman
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Matt Benson
>> Benedikt Ritter
>> Bruno Kinoshita
>> Gary Gregory
>> Luc Maisonobe
>> Oliver Heger
>> Christian Grobmeier
>> Torsten Curdt
>>
>> -1s
>> Mark Thomas
>> Thomas Vandahl
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>> Gilles Sadowski
>> Jorg Schaible
>>
>> +0.5
>> Olivier Lamy
>>
>> +0
>> Ralph Goers
>>
>> -0
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>> that.
>
> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
I agree entirely with Phil.
I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
> Phil
>>
>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>> everyone's vote.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>> http://github.com/britter
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> (counting votes on both lists):
>
> +1s
> James Carman
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Matt Benson
> Benedikt Ritter
> Bruno Kinoshita
> Gary Gregory
> Luc Maisonobe
> Oliver Heger
> Christian Grobmeier
> Torsten Curdt
>
> -1s
> Mark Thomas
> Thomas Vandahl
> Damjan Jovanovic
> Gilles Sadowski
> Jorg Schaible
>
> +0.5
> Olivier Lamy
>
> +0
> Ralph Goers
>
> -0
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> that.
I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
Phil
>
> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> everyone's vote.
>
> Thank you,
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>
>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>> component!!
>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>
>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>> getting there.
>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>
>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>> http://github.com/britter
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Jörg Schaible <Jo...@scalaris.com>.
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> (counting votes on both lists):
>
> +1s
> James Carman
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Matt Benson
> Benedikt Ritter
> Bruno Kinoshita
> Gary Gregory
> Luc Maisonobe
> Oliver Heger
> Christian Grobmeier
> Torsten Curdt
>
> -1s
> Mark Thomas
> Thomas Vandahl
> Damjan Jovanovic
> Gilles Sadowski
> Jorg Schaible
actually I am surprised now, that you counted the other thread as well. My
objections were of technical nature, but have been cleared. I did not vote
again on purpose.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
(counting votes on both lists):
+1s
James Carman
Romain Manni-Bucau
Matt Benson
Benedikt Ritter
Bruno Kinoshita
Gary Gregory
Luc Maisonobe
Oliver Heger
Christian Grobmeier
Torsten Curdt
-1s
Mark Thomas
Thomas Vandahl
Damjan Jovanovic
Gilles Sadowski
Jorg Schaible
+0.5
Olivier Lamy
+0
Ralph Goers
-0
Emmanuel Bourg
The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
that.
Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
everyone's vote.
Thank you,
James
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>> >>
>> >> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>> >> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>> >> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>> >> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>> >>
>> >> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>> >> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>> >> component!!
>> >> So no release happen at the end....
>> >>
>> > I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>> getting there.
>> >
>> > I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>> >
>> > Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>
>
> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> >
>> > Phil
>> >>
>> >>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> All,
>> >>>
>> >>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>> >>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> >>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>> >>>
>> >>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Olivier Lamy
>> >> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git
for SCM...
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 13.10.2013 22:08, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> 2013/10/13 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing
>> a
>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>> problem
>>>> is
>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>>>> back.
>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
>>>> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
>>>> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
>>> - issues I was unable to fix
>>> - issues I was unable to reproduce
>>> - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
>>> strange asian-english mixture
>>>
>>> But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
>>> Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
>> It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
>> code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
>> adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
>> you started with generification?
>>
>
> None, I just changes the language level. I wanted to review all open issues
> before starting with the generification, because the changes all over the
> place will make appling patches very difficult. I think it was Sebb who
> started, before I told him my intention.
>
>
>>
>> I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
>> this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
>> we use generics or not.
>
>
> IMHO another release of BU1 should have generics. If it is to difficult we
> should better invest the time to work on BU2.
Yes, I also prefer having generics.
However, there is a dependency of [configuration] 2.0 and a new feature
of BU, so I really need to push out a release.
Oliver
>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love
>> to
>>> start work on it again.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com
>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git
for SCM...
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/10/13 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >
> >> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> >>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>
> >>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> too
> >>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing
> a
> >>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> >>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
> problem
> >> is
> >>>> getting there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> ready
> >>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
> the
> >>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> >> back.
> >>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
> >>
> >> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
> >> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
> >> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
> >>
> >>
> > I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
> > - issues I was unable to fix
> > - issues I was unable to reproduce
> > - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
> > strange asian-english mixture
> >
> > But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
> > Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
> It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
> code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
> adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
> you started with generification?
>
None, I just changes the language level. I wanted to review all open issues
before starting with the generification, because the changes all over the
place will make appling patches very difficult. I think it was Sebb who
started, before I told him my intention.
>
> I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
> this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
> we use generics or not.
IMHO another release of BU1 should have generics. If it is to difficult we
should better invest the time to work on BU2.
>
> Oliver
>
> >
> > BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love
> to
> > start work on it again.
> >
> >
> >> Oliver
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Benedikt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oliver
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> >>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git
for SCM...
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem
>> is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>
>> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
>> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
>> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>>
>>
> I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
> - issues I was unable to fix
> - issues I was unable to reproduce
> - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
> strange asian-english mixture
>
> But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
> Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
you started with generification?
I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
we use generics or not.
Oliver
>
> BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love to
> start work on it again.
>
>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git
for SCM...
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >
> >> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>
> >>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
> >>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
> >>>> component!!
> >>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>
> >>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> >> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem
> is
> >> getting there.
> >>>
> >>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
> >> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
> >> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>
> >>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>
> >
> > Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> back.
> > If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>
> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>
>
I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
- issues I was unable to fix
- issues I was unable to reproduce
- issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
strange asian-english mixture
But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love to
start work on it again.
> Oliver
>
> >
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Oliver
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> >>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git
for SCM...
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>
>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>
>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>> component!!
>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>
>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>> getting there.
>>>
>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>
>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>
>
> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
Oliver
>
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>
> >> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>
> >> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
> >> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
> >> component!!
> >> So no release happen at the end....
> >>
> > I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
> getting there.
> >
> > I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >
> > Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>
Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
Benedikt
>
> Oliver
>
> >
> > Phil
> >>
> >>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> >>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>
> >>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>
> >>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Olivier Lamy
> >> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>
>
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>
>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>
>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>> component!!
>> So no release happen at the end....
>>
> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is getting there.
>
> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>
> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
Oliver
>
> Phil
>>
>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>
>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>
>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Lamy
>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Matt and I will probably have proxy2 ready very soon, too
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>
>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>
>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>> component!!
>> So no release happen at the end....
>>
> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is getting there.
>
> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>
> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>
> Phil
>>
>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>
>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>
>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Lamy
>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>
> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>
> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
> component!!
> So no release happen at the end....
>
I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is getting there.
I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
Phil
>
>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>
>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>
>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 11/10/2013 00:41, Olivier Lamy wrote:
<snip/>
> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> instead of a released version?
Tomcat does not use an svn:external of any Commons component.
Tomcat releases depend only on released versions of DBCP (excluding the
8.0.x release candidates which are using snapshots of Pool 2 and DBCP 2
and will switch to released versions before the first stable 8.0.x
release) .
Tomcat does have package renamed versions of Pool, DBCP, Digester,
Logging, FileUpload, Codec and BCEL. Some of these are via svn cp, some
(including DBCP) are scripted from the released source tarballs.
Tomcat depends directly on Daemon.
There are several reasons why Tomcat does not, can not and will not ship
Commons JARs directly:
- the package rename is necessary to avoid potential conflicts if a web
application ships with the same jar
- sometimes Tomcat only needs a few classes from a much larger JAR
None of the reasons have anything to do with Commons's choice of git vs
svn, Ant vs Maven or the frequency of releases.
There is nothing that Commons's could do that would remove the need for
Tomcat to repackage these JARS and enable Tomcat to simply ship the
released JARs directly.
There is nothing that Commons's could do to make it easier for Tomcat to
consume these artefacts (if there was, I'd have done it already).
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
component!!
So no release happen at the end....
On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:50 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> All,
>
> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>
> +1 - yes, move to Git
> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>
>
+1 (binding)
Matt
> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>