Fair point. My experience has been the same. Was a little stubborn at first, but once I made the move from Subversion I haven't looked back. One thing that I found it fixed, in my environment, is avoiding devs using the main source control as a form of backup.
André-John Sent from my phone. Envoyé depuis mon téléphone. > On 30 Apr 2014, at 18:48, Josh Suereth <joshua.suer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd argue that the convenience of pull requests in ASF should be a fixable > problem. If ASF is running repositories, Gerrit would be a great way to > set up an elegant ASF workflow... > > In any case, I applaud the effort to migrate to get and understand the > concerns. My experience has been truly great moving to git. > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Andre-John Mas > <andrejohn....@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Could we conceive of having a GitHub project, that serves as a point for >> pull-requests and other community work and at the same time have a git repo >> at Apache that syncs with this? >> >> >> André-John >> >> Sent from my phone. Envoyé depuis mon téléphone. >> >>>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 17:33, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Even if I share some of your enthusiasm with git, don't forget that git >> at the ASF isn't like git in github. Pull request, code review and so on is >> not as integrated as in github. >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>>> Le 30 avr. 2014 à 16:01, Josh Suereth <joshua.suer...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >>>> >>>> If you don't mind some recommendations from the peanut gallery (been >> using >>>> git for 5 years now) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Antoine Levy-Lambert <anto...@gmx.de >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello Maarten, >>>>> >>>>> I do not know a lot about git either. >>>>> >>>>> Here are the advantages I see in migrating to git : >>>>> >>>>> - git allows third-parties to clone an original repository and in fact >> to >>>>> create a fork while keeping the possibility of contributing back what >> they >>>>> have created if they want to, and also importantly to incorporate >> inside >>>>> their branches changes done elsewhere including in the reference >>>>> repository. So I see git as having the same strategic importance for >> the >>>>> source code like the fact of uploading the ant jars to maven central >> is for >>>>> the use of the binaries. >>>> This is pretty huge. The cost of contributions is a lot lower *and* you >> can >>>> perform magic on branches (git rebase) before submitting to upstream >>>> projects. We (sbt + Scala) generally have a workflow of: >>>> >>>> 1. hack, hack, hack on our own clone/branch with a name "wip" >>>> 2. When done (across the group working on it), rebase the commits and >> clean >>>> up the commit messages to be as useful as possible >>>> 3. Submit a pull request, code review, go back to #1 as necessary >>>> 4. Merge into master, delete local branch, continue work. >>>> >>>> Not only that, we're already using the git Ivy mirror to collaborate >>>> between sbt devs and outside ivy contributors. It's a very good model >> for >>>> highly distributed (i.e. OSS) teams where coordination of contributions >> is >>>> hard. >>>> >>>> >>>>> - for the developers of the Apache project - us - the small advantages >> are >>>>> to be able to commit stuff locally on our computers before pushing >> when we >>>>> are happy with our changes. Also one can switch branch very quickly >> within >>>>> the same workspace when using git, this might be an advantage. >>>> I often run 3-5 branches of code for OSS projects. 1-2 of "itch >>>> scratching" and 1-3 of "bug fixing". It's a great thing. >>>> >>>> >>>>> - because of the popularity of git I imagine that the change is good >> for >>>>> the long run but this is speculation >>>> Popularity definitely puts it above something like mercurial. It also >>>> means the tooling for git has become pretty good over the past few >> years. >>>> JGit even provides really good Git support for programatic access. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I imagine that some corporations, individuals,or other open source >>>>> organizations will take advantage of our projects moving to git to >> create >>>>> these forks, either because the contribution process via JIRA is too >> slow, >>>>> or because they want to create proprietary enhancements, or because >> they >>>>> are not sure that the changes that they do match the views /plans... >> of our >>>>> the Ant/Ivy/Ivyde/Easyant Apache project. >>>> From an sbt perspective, you'd see us attempting to contribute things >> back >>>> far more often than we do now. If you'd like an example project that >>>> contains website assets in it, feel free to checkout github.com/sbt/sbtand >>>> see how long it takes to switch branches / load the repository >> initially. >>>> >>>> - The Peanut Gallery (Josh) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
