Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apache considered harmful

mikealrogers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: Apache considered harmful

#51

Post by buff-a »

tptacek wrote: post #41
DannoHung wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not super familiar with subversion's internals, but couldn't a malicious user edit a subversion repo history?

Without access to the database itself? How? This is part of git's interface. (I appreciate it and don't think it's a bogeyman, but can see how it could be incompatible with some projects).

As I understand it, if the repo has receive.denynonfastforwards=true, a user can't push changes that will destroy history. This flag has been available since 2006. (And I didn't mod you down. You ask a legitimate question). A bit more research shows that there a couple more config changes required: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2085871/strategy-for-prev...

Re: Apache considered harmful

#52

Post by mikealrogers »

jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

This is perhaps the most depressing response I've received to my article.

As I said in my article this is far less about git and more about the chasm that has grown between Apache and the rest of the community.

Your first two points boil down to "nobody makes you join Apache, if you don't like our policies then you can get out". How does this help Apache or its projects?

Apache could still be valuable to the community but this kind of stubborn attitude will insure that it continues to become irrelevant when it could be a leader.

I do understand the purpose of Apache and it is not hosting source code. That is the point I'm trying to make. If that is not its value, and its policies around hosting that source are no longer beneficial to its projects, then it should change its policy.

I think that you, and many people in the ASF, have married the existing policies of Apache with the purposes for which they were created. While the intentions of the policies may still be relevant, and in my opinion correct, the policies themselves will not remain relevant forever in a field as rapidly evolving as technology and GitHub may just be the first example of Apache policy incompatibility with evolution of open source.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#53

Post by mcantelon »

jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

>there are some serious drawbacks for use of git

Such as?

Re: Apache considered harmful

#54

Post by onedognight »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #48
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not totally familiar with the issues here, but from an earlier perusal of the email threads on this, it seems like ASF's concern involves things like git's ability to edit the repository history.

Git normally only allows you to edit unpublished history; the server can prohibit editing of published history. Similarly, svn allows history editing if the server permits it.

See Fedora's git repository for an example of how to do this.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#55

Post by thomaslangston »

sliverstorm wrote: post #31
visural wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While correct, it would benefit Apache in the long run to foster better communities and tools for their projects to grow. While they provide value in terms of the protection/process/management it's all for nothing if the developers can't collaborate effectively. GitHub has changed many developer's UX of opensource development to the point that they don't want to do it "the old way". Apache should be looking to grow i…

Trouble is, their existing developers and projects seem to be doing fine with SVN. Don't forget those are the most important people, the workhorses you already have- not the flighty young birds you hope to one day trap. Sure, there is always the future to think about, but the future isn't happening a week from now. They have time to watch Git grow and wait until the time is right.

There's no reason they can't do both at the same time.

And the time to adopt GIT was 2008.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#56

Post by icefox »

nknight wrote: post #47
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not totally familiar with the issues here, but from an earlier perusal of the email threads on this, it seems like ASF's concern involves things like git's ability to edit the repository history.

Yeah, that particular bit of FUD is quite popular with the anti-git crowd. It's nonsense. Any attempt to edit the history of a public repository will be noticed instantly by anybody who tries to sync up, no matter what. Stick in a post-commit hook to force a sync to a backup repo nobody has access to if you want to be really paranoid, but as it is, git is already far more resilient against tampering with the public h…

Just turn of garbage collection (it isnt instant but i wouldnt bet that it would still be there in six months) and even if you rewrite the history you won't lose the objects. No need for a backup sync

Re: Apache considered harmful

#57

Post by buff-a »

tptacek wrote: post #40
buff-a wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I can think of a million scary sounding consequences of using git and I'm sure that all were raised. This is what established groups do when confronted with change: raise any objection even though a moments thought demonstrates the paucity of its merits.

That moment of thought was apparently too expensive for you; you didn't respond to the actual concern, but rather raised an argument suggesting that any argument about git must be meritless. I don't know who you expect to convince by baying at the moon. The ASF people are right in at least one sense: if you don't want to run projects in the ASF style, you are free to take your work elsewhere.

I need not respond to the actual concern because the ASF has already done so. The ASF has already decided to allow git to be used. I assume that their lawyers OK'd this change. So I did not intend to continue an ongoing discussion: ASF has already concluded that discussion and approved git. Clearly, jaaron does not represent the views of all the "ASF People", and for him to raise issues as legal showstoppers when the lawyers have clearly approved is utterly disingenuous.

The purpose of my post was not to discuss the merit of the git vs subversion argument, but instead to discuss the merits of jaarons criticism of mikeals article.

One method that established groups resist change is to continue to bring back discussion to issues that have been decided. It helps slow discussion on change by making it appear that a previous issue was not, in fact, resolved. In their mind, of course, its not been resolved: the lawyers were wrong, or perhaps the lawyers didn't understand. Established groups don't just get over it and move on. Why would they?

ASF has decided to allow Git. I believe that those projects which use git will enjoy more success than if they use subversion. Mikeal makes some interesting observations about this. Jaaron spouts the traditional establishment bullshit:

1. The other side are children. We are grown ups.

2. Legal implications.

3. Nobody is forcing you to participate.

4. Condescension. "It's impressive for what it is" ... (but "what it is" is "just a sandbox")

I'm calling it for what it is.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#58

Post by tedsuo »

jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

I would put up node.js as a counter-example. It is a large, important project successfully being managed on github. It's sponsor, Joyent, is a private company, but the role could easily be filled by a foundation like Apache.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#59

Post by neilk »

jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

Hey, I work at the Wikimedia Foundation -- a non-profit -- and we're eagerly anticipating a switchover to git. I don't see what one thing has to do with another.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#60

Post by buff-a »

tptacek wrote: post #29
buff-a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason apache can't maintain its own "legally authorative" git repo. Nothing in the authors post suggest that he is confusing the ASF with a "coding sandbox". Making that claim suggests to me that you are invested in the alternative and not thinking objectively. And I disagree about subversion being "made for Apache in the way Linus made git for Linux". Subversion is an utterly derivative implementation of…

I'm not totally familiar with the issues here, but from an earlier perusal of the email threads on this, it seems like ASF's concern involves things like git's ability to edit the repository history.

In discussion of an article which makes the claim "The problem here is less about git and more about the chasm between Apache and the new culture of open source." it is ironic that an objection is raised that is trivially answered by using one of the very proponents of this new "open knowledge" culture, Stack Overflow:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2085871/strategy-for-prev...

Post reply on HN