Regarding history, if we switch to git, our history will remain in svn, even if the branches are deleted, the history and old revisions are still there.
Upayavira On Sun 2015, at 10:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Having to agree on mechanics certainly is a downside of Git. > > There is only one good rule though - no merge commmits in the history > :) Ever. Do whatever you want beyond that. A clean, simple history for > each branch is the only sensible use of Git I've seen. > > - Mark > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM Adrien Grand > <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The main benefit I see is that external contributors would get their >> name in the commit log. >> >> However on the other hand, I'm a bit annoyed that people easily >> disagree on the workflow: some people merge into the maintenance >> branch first and then to master, other people merge into master first >> and then cherry-pick, other people prefer rebasing instead of merging, >> etc. I personally don't really care but if we agree on moving to Git, >> I hope we can agree on the workflow at the same time. At least today >> with svn we have something simple that everybody agrees on. >> >> -0: I'm not against it but Subversion works well for me today. If >> everybody else agrees on switching to Git I would like us to agree on >> the workflow as well. >> >> -- >> Adrien >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > -- > - Mark about.me/markrmiller
