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? :)
> 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? :)