On 2007-11-12 18:44, Johannes Sixt wrote: > On Monday 12 November 2007 17:48, Christian Thaeter wrote: > > There are no restrictions on how to use the mob. Give it a try, but keep > > in mind that this branches have to be kept in sync, I may argue that > > long-living bugfix branches won't scale. But really its open for any > > try, we will see what works best. > > The workflow *must* be that a contributor bases his code on the cinelerra/svn > repository and pushes to mob for others/me to pull and commit back to svn. > > My favorite workflow actually is that we abandon svn altogether. But I don't > know how our packagers can deal with such a situation. Opinions? Vale? Kevin?
I don't have objections if there is a stable branch for packaging. I've been avoiding git personally, as I tire of learning new version control systems... Using cvs/svn on open projects, and another pair of tools on work projects, makes me slow to adopt another one. I'll defer to your and Andraz's advice here. I'd consider you two the most knowledgable contributors. If you wanted to move to git, I can learn how to pull repo's from it for packaging. :) Having said that, some of the smaller patches that are going to mob might have been commited already if they appeared on the mailing list... If I see it here and can read through it, I'd pull a couple in once in a while. I think Andraz may be the same and has not started using git yet, or maybe he has by now. On 2007-11-12 19:08, mark carter wrote: > Johannes Sixt wrote: > > My favorite workflow actually is that we abandon svn altogether. But I > > don't > > know how our packagers can deal with such a situation. > The main advantage I see to Git is that anyone can clone a repo and get > their own personal checkin. I can't find the article, but some people > argue against git and in favour of svn, claiming that the whole idea of > priviliged checkin is not such a bad idea. > > I guess it's easy to buy into the latest and greatest, whether it's the > meme C++ is better than C or SVN is better than CVS. Many years ago now, > I was on a minibus, and overheard a conversation where some guy was > saying that choice of things like languages can often be a red herring, > and that the best language to use is probably the one that you /want/ to > use. I'm somewhat along these lines. If a project has usable tools in place, it's really time to focus on the code and stop restructuring. Newer members often want to change the tools and the structure, rather than start smaller and improve some areas from the inside out. I've never really thought that was the way to start, as it's easy to do more damage than good. Plus, you don't get to show you understand design well enough to really improve the project before making major changes. But I come from an X background, where it took forever to get contributor rights. It was always easy to submit a patch though. It didn't matter what tool you used, cvs, local diffs, whatever you wanted. Send a diff patch and it is looked at sometime. The anyone can clone a repo idea seems to be kind of a red herring to me... you can clone an svn repo, you can clone a cvs repo... the commands are different, the structures different, and some things are harder (Hannes obviously likes the merging and tracking in git,) but a lot of the arguments seem to just be based on the tool each developer wants to use... But maybe it's just me. -- Kevin _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
