[VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
64 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Oliver Heger-3
Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:

>
>
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>
>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>
>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>> component!!
>> So no release happen at the end....
>>
> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is getting there.  
>
> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.  
>
> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.

Oliver

>
> Phil
>>
>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>
>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>
>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Lamy
>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Benedikt Ritter-4
2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>

> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>
> >> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>
> >> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
> >> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
> >> component!!
> >> So no release happen at the end....
> >>
> > I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
> getting there.
> >
> > I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >
> > Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>

Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.

Benedikt


>
> Oliver
>
> >
> > Phil
> >>
> >>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
> >>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
> >>>
> >>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>
> >>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Olivier Lamy
> >> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Oliver Heger-3
Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:

> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>
>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>
>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>> component!!
>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>
>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>> getting there.
>>>
>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>
>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>
>
> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.

I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.

Oliver

>
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Benedikt Ritter-4
2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>

> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>
> >>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
> >>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
> >>>> component!!
> >>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>
> >>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> >> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem
> is
> >> getting there.
> >>>
> >>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
> >> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
> >> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>
> >>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
> >> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>
> >
> > Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> back.
> > If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>
> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>
>
I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
- issues I was unable to fix
- issues I was unable to reproduce
- issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
strange asian-english mixture

But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.

BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love to
start work on it again.


> Oliver
>
> >
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Oliver
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
> >>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

James Carman
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
(counting votes on both lists):

+1s
James Carman
Romain Manni-Bucau
Matt Benson
Benedikt Ritter
Bruno Kinoshita
Gary Gregory
Luc Maisonobe
Oliver Heger
Christian Grobmeier
Torsten Curdt

-1s
Mark Thomas
Thomas Vandahl
Damjan Jovanovic
Gilles Sadowski
Jorg Schaible

+0.5
Olivier Lamy

+0
Ralph Goers

-0
Emmanuel Bourg

The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
that.

Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
everyone's vote.

Thank you,

James

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>> >>
>> >> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>> >> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>> >> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>> >> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>> >>
>> >> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>> >> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>> >> component!!
>> >> So no release happen at the end....
>> >>
>> > I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>> getting there.
>> >
>> > I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>> >
>> > Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>
>
> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> >
>> > Phil
>> >>
>> >>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> All,
>> >>>
>> >>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>> >>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>> >>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>> >>>
>> >>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Olivier Lamy
>> >> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Phil Steitz
On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:

> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> (counting votes on both lists):
>
> +1s
> James Carman
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Matt Benson
> Benedikt Ritter
> Bruno Kinoshita
> Gary Gregory
> Luc Maisonobe
> Oliver Heger
> Christian Grobmeier
> Torsten Curdt
>
> -1s
> Mark Thomas
> Thomas Vandahl
> Damjan Jovanovic
> Gilles Sadowski
> Jorg Schaible
>
> +0.5
> Olivier Lamy
>
> +0
> Ralph Goers
>
> -0
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
> that.

I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.

Phil

>
> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> everyone's vote.
>
> Thank you,
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>> component!!
>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>
>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>>> getting there.
>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>
>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>> http://github.com/britter
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Oliver Heger-3
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:

> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem
>> is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>
>> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
>> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
>> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>>
>>
> I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
> - issues I was unable to fix
> - issues I was unable to reproduce
> - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
> strange asian-english mixture
>
> But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
> Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
you started with generification?

I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
we use generics or not.

Oliver

>
> BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love to
> start work on it again.
>
>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Benedikt Ritter-4
2013/10/13 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>

> Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> >>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> too
> >>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing
> a
> >>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
> >>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
> problem
> >> is
> >>>> getting there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> ready
> >>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
> the
> >>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
> >>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> >> back.
> >>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
> >>
> >> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
> >> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
> >> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
> >>
> >>
> > I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
> > - issues I was unable to fix
> > - issues I was unable to reproduce
> > - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
> > strange asian-english mixture
> >
> > But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
> > Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
> It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
> code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
> adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
> you started with generification?
>

None, I just changes the language level. I wanted to review all open issues
before starting with the generification, because the changes all over the
place will make appling patches very difficult. I think it was Sebb who
started, before I told him my intention.


>
> I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
> this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
> we use generics or not.


IMHO another release of BU1 should have generics. If it is to difficult we
should better invest the time to work on BU2.


>
> Oliver
>
> >
> > BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love
> to
> > start work on it again.
> >
> >
> >> Oliver
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Benedikt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oliver
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
> >>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [BeanUtils] Next release WAS [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Oliver Heger-3
Am 13.10.2013 22:08, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:

> 2013/10/13 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>
>> Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing
>> a
>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
>> problem
>>>> is
>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>>>> back.
>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> I did not look into the open issues so far. I would rather take a more
>>>> minimalistic approach, i.e. pushing out version 1.9 with what is
>>>> currently there and then put more energy in BeanUtils2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I looked through most issues. There were three categories:
>>> - issues I was unable to fix
>>> - issues I was unable to reproduce
>>> - issues I was unable to understand because they were written in some
>>> strange asian-english mixture
>>>
>>> But we can have another iteration and talk about the things.
>>> Generics can be removed if you want to do a minimal release.
>> It is certainly annoying to have all these generics warnings in the
>> code, especially if there are already some classes that have been
>> adapted. Do you remember roughly how many classes you did rework when
>> you started with generification?
>>
>
> None, I just changes the language level. I wanted to review all open issues
> before starting with the generification, because the changes all over the
> place will make appling patches very difficult. I think it was Sebb who
> started, before I told him my intention.
>
>
>>
>> I guess I will start an attempt to generify some classes and see how far
>> this gets and how easy or complicated it is. Then we can decide whether
>> we use generics or not.
>
>
> IMHO another release of BU1 should have generics. If it is to difficult we
> should better invest the time to work on BU2.

Yes, I also prefer having generics.

However, there is a dependency of [configuration] 2.0 and a new feature
of BU, so I really need to push out a release.

Oliver

>
>
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>>
>>> BU2 is a hole different story. It's more like a prototype. But I'd love
>> to
>>> start work on it again.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Dave Brosius-2
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
in the spirit of better late than never

+1 - yes, move to Git



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

James Carman
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Phil,

While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:

"Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"

I got this information from:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
(consensus != unanimous).

However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
your concerns.

Thanks,

James

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>
>> +1s
>> James Carman
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Matt Benson
>> Benedikt Ritter
>> Bruno Kinoshita
>> Gary Gregory
>> Luc Maisonobe
>> Oliver Heger
>> Christian Grobmeier
>> Torsten Curdt
>>
>> -1s
>> Mark Thomas
>> Thomas Vandahl
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>> Gilles Sadowski
>> Jorg Schaible
>>
>> +0.5
>> Olivier Lamy
>>
>> +0
>> Ralph Goers
>>
>> -0
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>> that.
>
> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>> everyone's vote.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>> http://github.com/britter
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Phil Steitz
On 10/13/13 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:

> Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>
> I got this information from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
>
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.

As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
seeing if we can actually get consensus.  I stand by my statement
above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.

Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
standardization are we going to force on components.  My view is
less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
at once or even ever done uniformly.

Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
good thing to spend time on.  I just don't think its fair to those
who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
move everything.

Phil

>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> Phil
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

James Carman
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
> seeing if we can actually get consensus.  I stand by my statement
> above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
> perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
> VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
>

I will concede that the VOTE may have been a bit premature, judging by
the type of resistance we have to this move.  Although, in my defense,
there are other projects already successfully using Git and they are
alive-and-well, so I didn't think in a million years that the
opposition would be based on feasibility of git.  SVN may be the most
widely used, but my understanding is Git is definitely the most
popular (meaning a lot of people on SVN wish they could switch to
Git).  My intent was not to splinter or fracture the community.  On
the contrary, I brought this up hoping to *grow* the community.  Also,
most of the dissenting opinions were expressed after the VOTE was
started.  The original discussion thread was open for three days
before the VOTE was started.

> Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
> standardization are we going to force on components.  My view is
> less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
> at once or even ever done uniformly.
>

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about this one, especially when it comes
to SCM. I agree that we may need to be a little more loosey-goosey
with our "rules" that are project-wide (I consider myself a closest to
a libertarian :).  There have to be some things we stay consistent,
on, though.  Otherwise, why are we all grouped together, then?  If we
get too loose, then it makes it difficult for folks to jump in on
another component and help out if they get an urge (if one of my math
books falls of the shelf and hits me in the head and I get some
inspiration).

> Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
> Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
> consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
> good thing to spend time on.  I just don't think its fair to those
> who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
> VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
> move everything.
>

It would be great if you want to lend us a hand with the test
component we're creating in git, to help us iron out the workflow.  It
might be a bit cheaper than moving [math] and trying to figure out how
to do releases.  Might be more fun, too, since we're starting "green
field" :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by James Carman
Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3E from which I quote below:

"Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively agree).

Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some other set of bylaws."
As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means everyone must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.

Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on the httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.

Ralph


On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:

> Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>
> I got this information from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
>
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>>
>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by James Carman
IMO (and it is just my opinion), all commons projects should eventually move to git.  The problem is that commons is more a disjoint group of small, fairly unrelated projects than a true umbrella project.  As such, it might make more sense for a few projects to move before moving everything.

I'd be surprised if anyone questions your motives in this. I certainly don't. So I don't think you need to justify starting a vote, even if it might be premature.

As for standardization, my opinion is that projects should be as standard as possible. That said, I found when working on VFS that at the time it was the only multi-module project and stuff other projects were doing in the build simply didn't work.  So some amount of flexibility is required.

Ralph

On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:30 PM, James Carman wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> As I said, I am fine with experimenting and based on that experience
>> seeing if we can actually get consensus.  I stand by my statement
>> above that the VOTE was premature and while "legal" from ASF
>> perspective it is not a good practice to try to force consensus by
>> VOTE-ing and conclude based on a mixed vote that consensus exists.
>>
>
> I will concede that the VOTE may have been a bit premature, judging by
> the type of resistance we have to this move.  Although, in my defense,
> there are other projects already successfully using Git and they are
> alive-and-well, so I didn't think in a million years that the
> opposition would be based on feasibility of git.  SVN may be the most
> widely used, but my understanding is Git is definitely the most
> popular (meaning a lot of people on SVN wish they could switch to
> Git).  My intent was not to splinter or fracture the community.  On
> the contrary, I brought this up hoping to *grow* the community.  Also,
> most of the dissenting opinions were expressed after the VOTE was
> started.  The original discussion thread was open for three days
> before the VOTE was started.
>
>> Another healthy discussion that we need to have is how much
>> standardization are we going to force on components.  My view is
>> less == better, which means the move to git does not have to be all
>> at once or even ever done uniformly.
>>
>
> Yeah, I don't know how I feel about this one, especially when it comes
> to SCM. I agree that we may need to be a little more loosey-goosey
> with our "rules" that are project-wide (I consider myself a closest to
> a libertarian :).  There have to be some things we stay consistent,
> on, though.  Otherwise, why are we all grouped together, then?  If we
> get too loose, then it makes it difficult for folks to jump in on
> another component and help out if they get an urge (if one of my math
> books falls of the shelf and hits me in the head and I get some
> inspiration).
>
>> Somewhat ironically, I am +1 for experimenting with git in [math] if
>> Luc is willing to take the lead in setting it up and we can come to
>> consensus among the active [math] committers that we think it is a
>> good thing to spend time on.  I just don't think its fair to those
>> who happen to have missed the last couple of days or chose not to
>> VOTE, or those who voted -1 to assume that we have "consensus" to
>> move everything.
>>
>
> It would be great if you want to lend us a hand with the test
> component we're creating in git, to help us iron out the workflow.  It
> might be a bit cheaper than moving [math] and trying to figure out how
> to do releases.  Might be more fun, too, since we're starting "green
> field" :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ted Dunning
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Ralph,

Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.

As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
 Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.

In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
votes.

That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
 The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.

One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].

See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

This is the point that Phil first commented.

On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
subject a number of times:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E

In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.





On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>
> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> agree).
>
> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> other set of bylaws."
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means everyone
> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>
> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on the
> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >
> > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> >
> > I got this information from:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > (consensus != unanimous).
> >
> > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> > your concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>
> >>> +1s
> >>> James Carman
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> Matt Benson
> >>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>> Gary Gregory
> >>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>> Oliver Heger
> >>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>
> >>> -1s
> >>> Mark Thomas
> >>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>
> >>> +0.5
> >>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>
> >>> +0
> >>> Ralph Goers
> >>>
> >>> -0
> >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>
> >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
> >>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
> >>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>> everyone's vote.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> too
> >>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> releasing a
> >>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> have
> >>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
> problem is
> >>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> ready
> >>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
> the
> >>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
> >>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> back.
> >>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
> >>>>
> >>>> Benedikt
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
> >>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>
>> +1s
>> James Carman
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Matt Benson
>> Benedikt Ritter
>> Bruno Kinoshita
>> Gary Gregory
>> Luc Maisonobe
>> Oliver Heger
>> Christian Grobmeier
>> Torsten Curdt
>>
>> -1s
>> Mark Thomas
>> Thomas Vandahl
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>> Gilles Sadowski
>> Jorg Schaible
>>
>> +0.5
>> Olivier Lamy
>>
>> +0
>> Ralph Goers
>>
>> -0
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>> that.
>
> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.

I agree entirely with Phil.

I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.

> Phil
>>
>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>> everyone's vote.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The problem is
>>>> getting there.
>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of the
>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>
>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>> http://github.com/britter
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

James Carman
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
There were two threads.  As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).



On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
>  Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
>  The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >
> > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > agree).
> >
> > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > other set of bylaws."
> > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means everyone
> > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >
> > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or
> a
> > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > >
> > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> > >
> > > I got this information from:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > >
> > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> > > your concerns.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > >>>
> > >>> +1s
> > >>> James Carman
> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>> Matt Benson
> > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > >>> Gary Gregory
> > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > >>> Oliver Heger
> > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > >>>
> > >>> -1s
> > >>> Mark Thomas
> > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > >>>
> > >>> +0.5
> > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > >>>
> > >>> +0
> > >>> Ralph Goers
> > >>>
> > >>> -0
> > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
> > >>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
> > >>> that.
> > >>
> > >> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > >> clearly not the c
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ted Dunning
James,

You succeeded in creating a second thread.

It is the first thread that had a reverted subject line.  Ironically, it
was one of your posts that reverted the subject line ... likely related to
the confusion you had in the first place with gmail.

Check the archives.  They show the subject lines.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM, James Carman
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> There were two threads.  As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
> threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
> for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> >  Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> >  The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> [hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> > > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3EfromwhichI quote below:
> > >
> > > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> > > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > > agree).
> > >
> > > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> > HTTP
> > > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > > other set of bylaws."
> > > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> > > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means
> everyone
> > > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> > be
> > > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> > >
> > > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> > says
> > > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
> > the
> > > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or
> > a
> > > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> > > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > > >
> > > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > > > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > > > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > > > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > > > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> > > >
> > > > I got this information from:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > > >
> > > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > > any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> > > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> > > > your concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see
> it
> > > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1s
> > > >>> James Carman
> > > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >>> Matt Benson
> > > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > > >>> Gary Gregory
> > > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > > >>> Oliver Heger
> > > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -1s
> > > >>> Mark Thomas
> > > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0.5
> > > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0
> > > >>> Ralph Goers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -0
> > > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
>  We
> > > >>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page
> for
> > > >>> that.
> > > >>
> > > >> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > > >> clearly not the c
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)."  My point was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.

Ralph

On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

1234