incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <>
Subject Re: Subversion vs other source control systems
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:37:39 GMT

El mié, 13-02-2008 a las 18:28 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> > J Aaron Farr wrote:
> >>> git could be an issue.
> > > Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> > Leo already gave a decent explanation.
> > Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
> >   1) infrastructure support
> >   2) cultural bias
> Only the first one is marginally correct, IMO.
> Santiago wrote:
> > > 1. You have to use subversion.
> > Why? Has been a vote done? where? I vote +1 for git if a vote is still open.
> No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice. 
>  Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
>  imposed on all projects.  Period.  Pretty much end of discussion.
> No project was allowed to stay with CVS.  No project will be allowed to
>  use another source control system unless it is adopted at the ASF
>  level.  Source code is a critical, shared, public resource maintained
>  by the Foundation, not something whose storage is managed on a project
>  by project basis.  The Infrastructure Team maintains and protects that
>  shared resource on behalf of the Foundation.

If I remember correctly, the policy was not to impose subversion, but to
mandate end of life for CVS. If I remember correctly, this was due to
security concerns, CVS requiring user accounts in the machine where the
repository is stored while subversion does not. Also functionality. Also
that having a lengthy transition was stressing infrastructure. I have
been looking into mail archives but have not found a pointer yet.

Funny enough, all people using distributed SCM quoted ease and
simplification of administration as one of the core advantages, be it
git, bazaar, mercurial or darcs.

If I read correctly your last two sentences, I see that
- you are no longer considering the Foundation as an umbrella for the
projects, but as an entity with a life that, I see from your reaction,
needs to protect itself from the (some?) projects
- The infrastructure team is a Police body ("to serve and protect")

Information can be copied and still stays the same, trying to restrict
it to a server is really futile and wasting. The only thing that
actually would need a "custody" would be a PGP-signed text document with
SHA1 of the release source and date. And I don't think it would be
signed by the infrastructure team, but by the three +1 voters of the
release in the PMC. And this "custody" can easily be achieved by
publishing in a multiply archived email list.

I don't think centralization has ever been part of "the Apache way".


> 	--- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message