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

> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving > this thread to be 'argued' by > those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the > test project request in INFRA, and > so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and > have

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

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of > the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is > to do with code, it's not code itself. > > I see it settled in that an understanding

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

On 16/10/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory wrote: > Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let > whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes? I think ignoring the consensus issue and why the discussion and vote failed to gain consensus would be to

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

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hi Hen, > > Send from my mobile device > > > Am 17.10.2013 um 08:24 schrieb Henri Yandell : > > > > Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I > > have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to

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

On 16 Oct 2013, at 23:14, Mark Thomas wrote: On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I think we should first decide IF we move and that was was happening here. What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the b

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

Hi Hen, Send from my mobile device > Am 17.10.2013 um 08:24 schrieb Henri Yandell : > > Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I > have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though. > > Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason w

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

Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though. Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issue

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

Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving this thread to be 'argued' by those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the test project request in INFRA, and so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and have a beer,

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

There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is to do with code, it's not code itself. I see it settled in that an understanding is reached. The majority of those voting have indicated that the

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

So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is settled right? On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" wrote: > On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote: > > > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for th

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

On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote: > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote? >> > > Apache voting rules are documented at > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't > def

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

On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote: > Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote? > Apache voting rules are documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement ca

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

On 10/16/13 2:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: > On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz wrote: >> O

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

Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote? On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: >> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote: Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tal

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

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: > > > >> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: > >>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote: > >>>

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

On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: >>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz 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 s

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

On 16 Oct 2013, at 22:46, Phil Steitz wrote: On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be forced to swi

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

On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: >>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz >>> 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

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

On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote: On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz 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 M

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

Hi James, 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 Grobmeie

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

On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: > On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz 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 Ben

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

OK - sorry for misunderstanding you. It appears we are in agreement and my use of "majority" in that sentence is incorrect. The wording I quoted from the httpd page is much clearer (at least 3 +1 votes and no vetoes). Ralph On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Ralph, > > I comp

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

On 10/13/13 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

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

Ralph, I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus. But where you say As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. I disagree. The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is 3 +1's, not a majo

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

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 tha

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

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 li

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

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

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

On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz 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 >

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

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). C

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

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'

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

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:

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

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Phil Steitz 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

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

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 co

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

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 o

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

in the spirit of better late than never +1 - yes, move to Git - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

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

Am 13.10.2013 22:08, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > 2013/10/13 Oliver Heger > >> Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: >>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger >>> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > >> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:

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

2013/10/13 Oliver Heger > Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > > > >> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > >>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > >>> > Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: > > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, O

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

Am 11.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > >> Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: >>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger >>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: >> >> Even I like

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

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

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

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 Jov

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

2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > > > >> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: > >>> > >>> > On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: > > Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5. > > >

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

Am 11.10.2013 22:01, schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > >> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5. Why other apache projects need to have thei

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

2013/10/11 Oliver Heger > Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: > > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy 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 tomc

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

Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy 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 >> i

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

+1 let's move on step by step. On 10 Oct 2013, at 16:50, James Carman 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 ope

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

I am +1 on using git but I won't be able to help with the changes that will need to be made so I am voting +0. FWIW, I don't think git really "solves" anything. It will fix a perception problem and it will make it easier to do distributed development. Ralph On Oct 10, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Mark

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

On 11/10/2013 00:41, Olivier Lamy wrote: > 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? Tomcat does not use an svn:external of any Commons component. Tomcat releases depend only

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

Matt and I will probably have proxy2 ready very soon, too On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy 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 >> r

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

> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy 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 t

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

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

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

+1 to git in general, however, I also prefer the approach to do the move in a more careful way, i.e. experimenting with single components first. Oliver Am 10.10.2013 16:50, schrieb James Carman: > All, > > We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I > think it's time to pu

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

The "binding" annotations on this thread kind of bug me here - we should be deciding this kind of thing by community consensus. "Binding" is only meaningful in release votes and VOTE-ing in general should be a last resort rather than early step in getting to consensus. I have tried to keep up wit

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

We could migrate our new release testing project (commons-canary :) first. Get the kinks worked out using it. Then, we migrate the rest of the projects. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 10/10/2013 19:27, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit : >> -1 (binding), it's a big change, so

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

Le 10/10/2013 19:27, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit : > -1 (binding), it's a big change, so let's try Mark's idea of one > component first. +1. I see a lot of advantages. The first one is in branches merging which could help for experimental stuff, the second is in getting contributions (for example lar

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

: James Carman >> To: Commons Developers List >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:50 AM >> Subject: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... >> >> All, >> >> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I >>

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

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

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

-1 (binding), it's a big change, so let's try Mark's idea of one component first. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman wrote: >> All, >> >> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I >> think it's time to put it to a vot

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

+1 (binding) we already have the mirrors for all proper components, so we probably will only have to deal with sandbox and the site/build stuff. I'll help where I can. 2013/10/10 James Carman > All, > > We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I > think it's time to put

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

On 10.10.13 16:50, James Carman 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 -1 I don't see any advantages. Bye, Thomas.

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

On 10/10/2013 15:50, James Carman 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! -1. I'm not co

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

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:50 AM, James Carman 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 > > +1 (binding) Matt > The vote will be left open

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

+1 - yes, move to Git *Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau * *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/* *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/10/10 James Carma

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

Here's my +1 (binding) On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, James Carman 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

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

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