On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Chris Frey <cdf...@foursquare.net> wrote:
> If you're personally interested in the switch, I'd say do it. It's a > great content manager. > > The nice thing is that if you are using git, there's no reason why CVS > can't be updated alongside, at least in a read-only manner. That way, > folks can choose which is most comfortable for them, when testing devel. That's something that wasn't so clear from the information in the Savannah git FAQ. However, it sounds like it would be possible to use git locally (and thus learn something new) without forcing any potential developer to use it. > This works mainly because submissions are done via patch, or via git > from other people's repos (only 1 so far, but I'm hoping for more :) ). > The CVS repositories are only updated by me. I don't know if this is a > drawback for adonthell. The idea is that all developers can directly commit their work, so having two repositories (CVS and git) that have to be kept in sync would complicate things a bit, I think. > Going this route kinda turns you into the "benevolent dictator" of the > linux kernel model. As long as people are free to make their own git > trees, I think this is a fine model to follow, but others have their > own opinions. If the Savannah git repo is open to multiple pushers, > then a CVS copy might be harder to keep up to date. I haven't tried this > myself. I think that is how it works indeed for Savannah (and it's kind of the development model I've grown used to). So I would more lean towards having just one repository only (and all the forks people want to make, as long as I don't have to care about those ;-)). Seeing how git works, developers would probably still have their own local repositories though, which isn't a bad idea. Makes trying out stuff much less painful ... if it doesn't work it's easy to revert and there's no need to mess up the master repository with dead branches or intermediate results. > I'm definitely a git fan, and would gladly answer any questions I can. > But the decision obviously should come down to what makes you most > productive. Yes. I personally feel comfortable with CVS or SVN and I would give git a try too (and I may well do that locally at first). The thing is, people kept shaking their heads about us still using CVS. I know there are some disadvantages compared to SVN, but nothing I would consider essential. I know nothing about git in that respect (i.e. whether transactions are atomic, whether it's easy to restructure the project without losing history information, etc.), but I like how it is distributed and allows pushing/pulling stuff to/from other repositories. I'll guess for me, the SCM used won't really affect productivity much, as checking in or out is usually quick anyway, compared to the actual coding (or testing of patches). There will be time spent converting the repository and updating the documentation and some time is required to make oneself familiar with the new system. The question is, will others continue to complain that we now use something "unusual" and unknown to them? So far there has been positive feedback from Rian as well, so of the people actually active right now, most seem to like the idea. Guess I'll give it a shot personally, and if people indeed want to change the SCM, post release of alpha 3 might be a good time to get it done. Kai _______________________________________________ Adonthell-devel mailing list Adonthell-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/adonthell-devel