Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Subversion project migrates to Git->

Submitted by gitficionado
gitficionado (3600283) writes "The Apache Subversion project has begun migrating its source code from the ASF Subversion repo to git. Last week, the Subversion PMC (project management committee) voted to to migrate, and the migration has already begun.

Although there was strong opposition to the move from the older and more conservative SVN devs, and reportedly a lot of grumbling and ranting when the vote was tallied, a member of the PMC (who asked to remain anonymous) told the author that "this [migration] will finally let us get rid of the current broken design to a decentralized source control model [and we'll get] merge and rename done right after all this time.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Drive by patches (Score 1) 279

by jimjag (#46023677) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

Linus gets it wrong again: The ASF does NOT require CLAs for "drive-by" patches. It only requires them for official contributors or committers, not for people providing patches on email lists, via JIRA, etc... Only when people have obtained the merit to directly change the official code is an iCLA required. As it *should be* for IP tracking. Double shame!

Comment: Re: Why did you sell out? (Score 1) 98

by jimjag (#44708889) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

Here's a dime. Buy a clue.

First of all, Outercurve != Microsoft.
Secondly, I work for Red Hat, which is open as Open Source as you can get.
Thirdly, I am also on the board of Apache and OSI. Maybe you've heard of them.
Fourthly, your ignorance is showing.
Fifthly, Bananas are the Atheists' Nightmare.

Comment: Re: Apache Harmony is dead, but GNU lives? (Score 2) 98

by jimjag (#44701025) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

Why? A couple of reasons. First of all, it was the basis for Apache entering into the EC and the JCP. Our involvement was predicted on the ability to obtain TCKs for Apache projects. Secondly, the ASF was promised it, but then denied the TCK (actually, an *open source compatible* TCK), and that's simply Not Right. Finally, the goal of creating s/w is that it be used, and the lack of certification significantly hampers that, as well as opens the project to submarine patents. Think Oracle is going to sue itself?

Comment: Re:Apache Harmony is dead, but GNU lives? (Score 4) 98

by jimjag (#44698585) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

The issue is that Oracle controls who gets the TCK and they put restrictions on it for Apache that they didn't put on for themselves (OpenJDK). Despite having a signed agreement to the contrary as well as agreeing w/ Apache back before Oracle bought Sun.

Weird, huh?

Comment: Re:Software freedom (Score 4) 98

by jimjag (#44698545) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

Also, to be clear, even though I'm mostly associated with the ALv2, I hack and develop code under a bunch of other license as well, including GPL, et.al.

A license is a tool, and you pick the license based on how you want, or don't want, your code to be distributed, used and shared. There is no one-size-fits-all license, and your choice of license should be done with some thought, not based on who has the longest or bushiest beard. :)=

Comment: Re:Would Outercurve have accepted the OpenOffice f (Score 5) 98

by jimjag (#44698329) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

Well, the question assumes that Oracle would have donated OpenOffice to Outercurve... I think it's kind of obvious that Oracle wanted it to go to the ASF and that other options weren't on the table. Now this could be implied as a Good Thing (a sort of olive branch towards Apache after the Java fiasco), or a Bad Thing (let those SOBs at Apache take all the heat), depending on one's world-view and mindset.

IMO, the "community" is much larger than "just" the LibreOffice community or the old OpenOffice community. The various versions and offshoots of OpenOffice are all part of this larger community, and so the question also assumes that "the community" is just LibreOffice itself, which I disagree with.

In all cases, IMO Outercurve would have handled it similarly to the way the ASF did: accept the code donation and welcome any and all comers with open arms. What would have happened after *that* is anyone's guess.

Comment: Re:Why do I need a license (Score 5) 98

by jimjag (#44698271) Attached to: Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski

Without a license, whatever code you produce is assumed to be under a copyright. That means legally people can't make copies, etc... A License is what provides the freedoms and openness required to allow people to see your code, share your code, distribute your code, etc...

That's why all those projects on Github that don't have a license are soooooo scary. Even though you can fork, etc, you have no real *rights* to do much of anything which the code. It's the license which grants those rights and freedoms.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...