Mailing List Archive

On 2023-05-08 16:18, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Graham,
>
> On 5/8/23 05:29, Graham Leggett via dev wrote:
>> On 04 May 2023, at 09:34, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write
>>> repository from Subversion to Git.
>>> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer
>>> available via svn.apache.org. It
>>> will be available via Git at
>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and
>>> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
>>> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
>>> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
>>> leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
>>> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I
>>> don't want to work with Github and I will only work with
>>>      what gitbox.apache.org offers.
>>> [X]: Leave everything as is.
>>
>> I would rather see proper SVN integration with Github. This is a vote
>> of no confidence in our own projects.
>
> I don't see it as an anti-NIH vote or anything like that.
>
> git simply has a bunch of superior features, behaviors, etc. that
> Subversion simply will never have, regardless of any commitment of their
> development team. Sure, the svn team could replicate git, but since git
> already exists, why not use it?
>
> -chris

My 2 cents on this is it's not Git vs Subversion here - it's GitHub vs
SubversionHub, and the latter doesn't exist. Given how the majority of
users use GitHub, it really isn't about how Git in any way is
better/worse than Subversion, it's 99% about the tools that GitHub offer.

VHS vs BetaMax anyone? :)

On 5/9/23 12:00 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

>
> VHS vs BetaMax anyone? :)

Video 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_2000) rules :-)

Regards

Rüdiger

On 5/4/23 10:34, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> [X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

--
Cheers

Jean-Frederic

On 5/8/23 9:16 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I might suggest another day or two because of the weekend and because it is so high-impact. Maybe an extra post to private@ in
> case some PMC members aren't tracking dev@ very closely.
>
>

I intend to close this vote in about 48 hours. It has been open then for a week.

Regards

Rüdiger

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:08?AM Stefan Sperling <stsp@apache.org> wrote:
>...

> If the ASF at large was confident in SVN as a technology then our current
> reality would look quite different. The Subversion project never managed
> to grow its developer base by becoming part of the ASF. We've mostly seen
>

That is simply untrue.

Case in point: WANdisco did not materially contribute to svn *until* the
project left the CollabNet umbrella. At that point, WD put several
full-time developers onto the project, and ramped up their project plans.
This is a specific *fact* directly from my conversations with the CEO, over
the phone and in-person at their offices in Sheffield. And WANdisco offered
many developers', over many years, with very significant and important
contributions.

The ASF is completely confident in svn, and basically 99% of our corporate
records, and some of our key workflows (eg. account requests, TLP
graduation, ICLA recording) is all based on Apache Subversion. Also a fact.
And zero plans to change that. Git is not envisioned to replace any of that.

Your implication that the Foundation was somehow required to grow the svn
community is misplaced. That is not its purpose. The Apache Subversion
community is responsible for growing itself. In 2011, the Board of
Directors specifically declined to assist a TLP with its community (*way*
larger than svn) because that is not the purpose of the Foundation. We do
not want some people "over there" on the Foundation/administrative side
interfering with the technical operation, and the community dynamics of one
of the communities. Or, even worse, to *pick* which communities get
assistance, while others do not. No winners. No losers. (clearly: I am
upset by your implication that you've been let down; the true answer is
missing a step on the Foundation's role)

As Daniel notes else-thread, the suggestion is not git vs. svn. It is
entirely about "Do we want the tools offered by GitHub, to be made
available to the Apache HTTPD community?"

I'm an svn partisan, but I also appreciate GitHub for its utility. I
voted +1 to move, for that reason only. Hands-down, I'd -1 a move to git.
It was only GitHub that changed my opinion on this issue.

Cheers,
-g

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 11:11:40PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
> The ASF is completely confident in svn, and basically 99% of our corporate
> records, and some of our key workflows (eg. account requests, TLP
> graduation, ICLA recording) is all based on Apache Subversion. Also a fact.
> And zero plans to change that. Git is not envisioned to replace any of that.
>
> Your implication that the Foundation was somehow required to grow the svn
> community is misplaced. That is not its purpose. The Apache Subversion
> community is responsible for growing itself. In 2011, the Board of
> Directors specifically declined to assist a TLP with its community (*way*
> larger than svn) because that is not the purpose of the Foundation. We do
> not want some people "over there" on the Foundation/administrative side
> interfering with the technical operation, and the community dynamics of one
> of the communities. Or, even worse, to *pick* which communities get
> assistance, while others do not. No winners. No losers. (clearly: I am
> upset by your implication that you've been let down; the true answer is
> missing a step on the Foundation's role)

Thanks for writing this up, Greg. Point taken. I did not mean to imply
that the foundation was somehow responsible for adding developers to the
project.

I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated contributors
arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
on svn.apache.org, are programmers, might have itches to scratch, already have
commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
There certainly have been some, but relatively few.
Of course, it's not the foundation's job to make that happen. It's up to
the individuals in the larger ASF community to make a decision whether
to get involved.

> As Daniel notes else-thread, the suggestion is not git vs. svn. It is
> entirely about "Do we want the tools offered by GitHub, to be made
> available to the Apache HTTPD community?"

Yep, that is very clear.
And there is the network effect which makes GitHub a popular platform
in its own right.

> I'm an svn partisan, but I also appreciate GitHub for its utility. I
> voted +1 to move, for that reason only. Hands-down, I'd -1 a move to git.
> It was only GitHub that changed my opinion on this issue.

I'll abstain since I don't contribute much to HTTPD anymore and probably
won't find the time to do so in the foreseeable future. I'll run with
whatever gets decided by the community.

Cheers,
Stefan

> On May 4, 2023, at 1:34 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

I trust subversion more as a vcs, but that is outweighed by the
convenience of Github's PR and issue management. Their integration is
far too complete to consider retaining bugzilla as well, except as a
source for legacy issues.

....Roy

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:18?AM Stefan Sperling <stsp@apache.org> wrote:
>...

> I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated
> contributors
> arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
> on svn.apache.org, are programmers, might have itches to scratch, already
> have
> commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
> across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
> It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
> There certainly have been some, but relatively few.
>

IMO, it is because Subversion is successful.

It just works. Zero friction. It doesn't cause developers a headache or an
"itch to scratch".

One doesn't think to improve their dishwasher. It just works. Why change
your hammer? It works.

I believe that Subversion hit its goal, and then some. I believe that is
why the *use* of Subversion did not lead to a desire to work/fix/change
Subversion.

Cheers,
-g

I wish more Apache projects reach maintenance mode as part of their maturity model. It’s good to complete your mission instead of always digging deeper holes.

Joe Schaefer, Ph.D
<joe@sunstarsys.com>
+1 (954) 253-3732
SunStar Systems, Inc.
Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki

________________________________
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:59:24 PM
To: Stefan Sperling <stsp@apache.org>
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:18?AM Stefan Sperling <stsp@apache.org<mailto:stsp@apache.org>> wrote:
>...
I did have some hope that we would see individual self-motivated contributors
arriving via various ASF projects because they are all using SVN every day
on svn.apache.org<http://svn.apache.org>, are programmers, might have itches to scratch, already have
commit access to ^/subversion, and there is some sense of shared ownership
across the ASF community. I was reminded of all this by Graham's remark.
It's the lack of such interactions that I find disappointing in retrospect.
There certainly have been some, but relatively few.

IMO, it is because Subversion is successful.

It just works. Zero friction. It doesn't cause developers a headache or an "itch to scratch".

One doesn't think to improve their dishwasher. It just works. Why change your hammer? It works.

I believe that Subversion hit its goal, and then some. I believe that is why the *use* of Subversion did not lead to a desire to work/fix/change Subversion.

Cheers,
-g

[ X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage
the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

--
Ken Coar (????)
Software developer, author, opinionist
Sanagendamgagwedweinini