3 ms·
I'm kind of confused at the people who thought this was an April Fool joke. Really? If the announcement was on a news site or blog, maybe, but a 'Task' issue on
by grkvlt 13y ago
I'm kind of confused at the people who thought this was an April Fool joke. Really? If the announcement was on a news site or blog, maybe, but a 'Task' issue on the INFRA JIRA is hardly the appropriate venue. Although, it seems that @jimjag (the ASF director) was pretty pissed at the Subversion PMC and lead [1] for making the decision without consulting the community, just taking a vote from the committers.
Note that the interesting part of this is the move to use Git as the back end storage engine for Subversion eventually, with 'svn' being just a client API. The code is available now in the 'ra-git' branch. [2] Also, see @gstein's comment to the committer, noting that using a Git repo for Subversion code will simplify testing the new libsvn_ra_git client when it's available:
> So I'll be able to use the svn client to check out from the ASF git repo? Awesome. [...] We can dogfood svn against our own repo. Thanks, Stefan
[1] https://twitter.com/jimjag/status/450999640583053312 https://twitter.com/jimjag/status/450999640583053312
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1583639 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1583639
- bbanyc 13y agoSVN was designed as an API that could support multiple backends (they've already moved from one based on BerkeleyDB to the current ad-hoc one). Git was designed as a backend for a version control system that was supposed to get a cleaner frontend API but never did. Set aside the trollish April 1 announcement - a Git-based SVN could actually work.
- flebron 13y agoWell this is embarrassing.
- grkvlt 13y agoIsn't it? But, well played to the Subversion guys, et al. Was absolutely taken in... ;)