broken wiki links and other minor nits

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <qu...@zimbra.com>]

The two links on <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DownloadFromSvn> 
starting at:

Viewing the SVN tree through the web

are both broken (404)'s.

The info on <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DevelopmentStuff> seems 
to have been better kept up to date.

Also, are there any plans to move to git?

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Re: broken wiki links and other minor nits

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <qu...@zimbra.com>]

--On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:11 PM -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail" 
<KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:

>
> On 2/20/2015 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
>
> The two links on <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DownloadFromSvn>
> starting at:
>
> Viewing the SVN tree through the web
>
> are both broken (404)'s.
>
> I can't recreate the issue, sorry.

Yeah, odd, they work fine for me now.  Must have been something transient 
on the Apache side.


> The info on <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DevelopmentStuff> seems
> to have been better kept up to date.
>
> Please send me your wiki username and I'll get you in the group to be
> able to contribute on the wiki!
>
>
> Also, are there any plans to move to git?
>
>
> I can't speak for the project unilaterally but I have a lot of priorities
> for the project that would rank above moving to git.  However, I did ask
> Joe back in 2012 to write up a nice paragraph about why git would be good
> for SA.
>
> The two things he identified that make git nicer than svn for large
> projects: easy forking, and easy merging.  The rest is a good
> explanation of the benefits so I'll include it:

Yeah, I use git with a lot of other projects.  I understand it not being 
the highest of priorities, but it is definitely a useful development model. 
;)

--Quanah


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Re: broken wiki links and other minor nits

["Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>]

On 2/20/2015 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> The two links on 
> <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DownloadFromSvn> starting at:
>
> Viewing the SVN tree through the web
>
> are both broken (404)'s.
I can't recreate the issue, sorry.
>
> The info on <https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DevelopmentStuff> 
> seems to have been better kept up to date.
Please send me your wiki username and I'll get you in the group to be 
able to contribute on the wiki!
> Also, are there any plans to move to git? 

I can't speak for the project unilaterally but I have a lot of 
priorities for the project that would rank above moving to git. However, 
I did ask Joe back in 2012 to write up a nice paragraph about why git 
would be good for SA.

The two things he identified that make git nicer than svn for large 
projects: easy forking, and easy merging.  The rest is a good 
explanation of the benefits so I'll include it:

    It is difficult to control permissions for a large number of users
    at once, adding inertia to the process of bringing new people into
    the project. With a git repo, any user can fork the project and get
    their own local copy of the repository. They can commit, rollback,
    and all the usual operations, but the changes stay on their local copy.

    To merge other users' changes back into the main codebase, there are
    two options. Trusted users can `git push`, which isn't substantially
    different from `svn commit`. Untrusted users can create a patch and
    send it in. A git patch merges the revision history of the user's
    copy of the repo. These two features encourage users to commit after
    every minor change, in contrast to svn where commits are always
    capable of breaking things for everyone else.

    If you want to go crazy with git, you can even use it for staging
    (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10662028/git-staging-server).
    Commits and pushes at staging are not visible to production. At
    stable versions, staging does a tag and push upstream. Production
    can upgrade independently from staging's pushes by simply checking
    out the latest revision.


So git certainly has merit but I want to focus more on the research 
work, modernizing the ruleqa zones, etc.  Git right now provides little 
merit to the project but if there was a committer who was desperate for 
it and was going to bang out a lot of work, etc. I'd certainly support them!

Regards,
KAM