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

131–140 of 171 posts

Re: Apache considered harmful

#131

Post by cube13 »

buff-a wrote: post #111
kahawe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> there are some serious drawbacks for use of git > Such as? The more important question is: what are developers really missing when they have to use svn to hack ASF's code in comparison to using git? (leaving github out of the equation, it is not git) You can hack locally to your heart's content and in case you want to contribute, you can diff and contribute. I don't really see the problem.

What you describe is the original use case for git: pull-based community development. So I can only conclude that you don't see a problem because you've never actually done it.

Which is the exact basic use case for almost all modern source control systems. Git doesn't do anything new or unique for that use case.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#132

Post by caniszczyk »

Well written... I wrote a response last night that dives into some numbers and my experiences with helping the Eclipse Foundation move to Git and Gerrit... http://aniszczyk.org/2011/11/23/apache-and-politics-over-cod...

Apache is pretty much the last major open source community to not move to some form of distributed version control. It's either politics (they host the Subversion project there) or negligence in my opinion.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#133

Post by benatkin »

jaaron wrote: post #65
mikealrogers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 communit…

"How does this help Apache or its projects?" The Apache Foundation is what you make of it. It will not change just because you post to your blog, but it will change if you engage the committer and membership population, build a consensus around your ideas and volunteer to do the actual work to make the changes happen. No one will force you to do such work and if you don't want to do it, then you're not obligated to d…

> The Apache Foundation is what you make of it. It will not change just because you post to your blog, but it will change if you engage the committer and membership population, build a consensus around your ideas and volunteer to do the actual work to make the changes happen.

This is true only from a CYA standpoint. As Mikeal said in the article, it's possible to do a lot of work and build up a strong case for a change that's important to project maintainers, yet still have Apache come up with excuses for why it can't happen. This is what happened with git -- twice.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#134

Post by nirvdrum »

MattRogish wrote: post #127
nirvdrum wrote: post #118

Just to get two things out of the way: I'm an ASF member (albeit not very active lately) and a huge fan of git with or without GitHub. I'm one of the many people advocating for git internally at the ASF. I have been met with opposition in the past, but a lot of it has been around who's going to maintain the infrastructure, given it's a volunteer system. Let's just take it as axiomatic that the ASF is going to self-ho…

This is a good point. Anyone who starts an open-source project should, from day one, have a vetted Contributor License Agreement and ONLY accept pull requests that include signed CLAs (or from a person who has one on file).

It'd be kinda nifty if GitHub had this built-in. I personally don't require CLAs for every project because it can be onerous. But at the least I try to pick a license that wouldn't allow for submarine patent claims.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#135

Post by cube13 »

buff-a wrote: post #117
jaaron wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How does this help Apache or its projects?" The Apache Foundation is what you make of it. It will not change just because you post to your blog, but it will change if you engage the committer and membership population, build a consensus around your ideas and volunteer to do the actual work to make the changes happen. No one will force you to do such work and if you don't want to do it, then you're not obligated to d…

Mikeal isn't arguing that Apache source should be put on GitHub. He is saying that ASF would benefit from the kind of community development that git promotes as exemplified by GitHub and linux.

Linux is a bad example. It's not "community" development by any real definition of it, because Linus controls everything that goes into the mainline codebase. If anything, it's community maintenance, because that is delegated out.

More importantly, Git by itself does not promote community development. No source control system does. Some make that style of development easier, but none of them actually directly promote it.

GitHub is not Git. GitHub is the Git version of SourceForge. Nearly all the community development features(bug tracking, forums, etc.) on both sites are built beside the source control system, and aren't really integrated directly to either Git or SVN.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#136

Post by nirvdrum »

EdiX wrote: post #119
kahawe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better. Please, do elaborate! In detail, why is git better than subversion if all I need is a central repository for a few people working at a company on one site, sitting in the same room with permanent network access. No distributed or remote or on-the-go development, no forks. > SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior. It is different but what exactly make…

> Please, do elaborate! In detail, why is git better than subversion if all I need is a central repository for a few people working at a company on one site, sitting in the same room with permanent network access. No distributed or remote or on-the-go development, no forks. Because with svn you end up having dirty working directories that go uncommitted for days because committing would break the build, as a result:…

SVN has branches, too. The problem it had was with merge-tracking and that's about when everyone hopped over to git (myself included). But that hasn't been an issue for a couple years now. By all means, stick with git if you prefer it, but release some of the older criticisms as they've been addressed by the SVN team.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#137

Post by ww520 »

rgardler wrote: post #88
ww520 wrote: post #13

I'm curious how does it harm anything? Did it kill any puppies? Maybe it's inefficient but harmful? Also remember GitHub is a for profit company. Its allowance for Open Source hosting is a marketing tactic. Anytime they feel the marketing value is not there, they will shut it down. Not that I'm against GitHub. It's a great company for itself. But comparing the Apache to GitHub is like comparing apple and orange.

I just want to be clear. To the best of my knowledge The Apache Software Foundation has never killed any puppies. Disclaimer: I am a Member of The Apache Software Foundation. I do not own any puppies. These two facts are not connected. (thanks for bringing some reality to this post, I don't agree with your other comments, see my comments elsewhere fore why, but your opening para is spot on)

Hyperbole is best answered with hyperbole.

Note that I have nothing against Git. I use it. The main difference between Apache and GitHub is one is a non-profit whose main goal to shepherd OS projects while the other one is a for-profit company out to make money. I don't think it's a fair comparison to use one to substitute another.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#138

Post by mcantelon »

kahawe wrote: post #90
mcantelon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there are some serious drawbacks for use of git Such as?

>> there are some serious drawbacks for use of git > Such as? The more important question is: what are developers really missing when they have to use svn to hack ASF's code in comparison to using git? (leaving github out of the equation, it is not git) You can hack locally to your heart's content and in case you want to contribute, you can diff and contribute. I don't really see the problem.

>I don't really see the problem.

Part of the drive of open source is bootstrapping better ways of doing things. We could all likely do our jobs to some degree running Windows 95, but who wants to? Git improvements over SVN include increased performance, cheap branching, more detailed tracking of changes, the ability to code offline (not a huge deal, but it certainly has made traveling more fun for me), and DVCS collaboration capabilities.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#140

Post by reissbaker »

bct wrote: post #129
buff-a wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 4. Condescension. "It's impressive for what it is" ... (but "what it is" is "just a sandbox") You're jumping at shadows and putting words into his mouth. What he said was: > Git is an impressive tool and github is awesome for what it is, but it's not a non-profit foundation and it won't replace one. Which doesn't imply the same condescenscion as your "quote".

The very next line:

    Confusing the Apache Software Foundation for your coding sandbox ...
Post reply on HN