Projects choose to go to the ASF. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell them it is not the right choice? Billions of dollars are made and saved every year thanks to ASF software (hell it's even in space)- there is a reason for that.
Can the ASF environment be improved for its projects? Of course it can - see my other comments where I address this point.
You're right of course - and I should have tempered my post with caveats about "if the poster is correct", and "I don't really know much about the internal workings of the ASF".
The main point I was trying to convey was just that there's a cost to not improving things, just as much as there's a cost to things getting worst.
I just want to be clear. To the best of my knowledge The Apache Software Foundation has never killed any puppies.
Disclaimer: I am a Member of The Apache Software Foundation. I do not own any puppies. These two facts are not connected.
(thanks for bringing some reality to this post, I don't agree with your other comments, see my comments elsewhere fore why, but your opening para is spot on)
Note that I have nothing against Git. I use it. The main difference between Apache and GitHub is one is a non-profit whose main goal to shepherd OS projects while the other one is a for-profit company out to make money. I don't think it's a fair comparison to use one to substitute another.
a) a complete misunderstanding of how and why the ASF operates the way it does
or
b) a desire for sensationalist blog pieces with almost no factual content
The ASF is working with Git, it has been for years. It doesn't yet provide a canonical repository from which to make releases. This is due to a number of non-trivial technical issues introduced by the processes adopted by Apache projects.
The Apache infrastructure team believe that they have now solved those issues and are testing them in CouchDB. Assuming the CouchDB experiment is a success the ASF will be rolling out Git as the canonical repository to all projects that want it.
Once the ASF has mapped the tools to the processes we can all move on and stop wasting our time with this spurious argument.
Disclaimer: Unlike the author of this blog I do have access to all the discussions about Git in the ASF and I am one of the mentors of PhoneGap, a project mentioned in the article.
You are right, there is no reason why the ASF can't own its own "legally authorative" git repo.
That is exactly why the ASF is conducting experiments in exactly that. Assuming those experiments are a success and representatives of ASF users are happy (which include business folk and lawyers, not just developers) then the ASF will role Git out to all projects that want it.
Can the ASF environment be improved for its projects? Of course it can - see my other comments where I address this point.