My point here is not really to discuss the merits of Git VS SVN on a feature / interface basis. We might as well talk about MySQL vs Postgres.
Personally, I prefer GIT. It feels good when I use it. SVN feels like crap. That doesn't make me want to move. I've used SVN for years with Lucene/Solr, and like everyone, it's pretty much second nature. The problem is the world is moving. It may not be clear to everyone yet, but give it a bit more time and it will be. Git already owns the open source world. It rivals SVN by most guesses in the proprietary world. This is a strong hard trend. The same trend that saw SVN eat CVS. I think clearly, a distributed version control system will dominate. And clearly Git has won. I'm not ready to call a vote, because I don't think it's critical we switch yet. But I wanted to continue the discussion, as obviously, plenty of it will be needed over time before we made such a switch. It's not about one thing being better than the other. It's about using what everyone else uses so you don't provide a barrier to contribution. It's about the post I linked to when I started this thread. I personally don't care about pull requests and Github. I don't think any of it's features are that great, other than it acts as a central repo. Git is not good because of Github IMO. But Git and Github are eating the world. Most of the patches I have processed now are made against Git. Jumping from SVN to Git and back is very annoying IMO though. There are plenty of tools and workflows for it and they all suck. Anyway, as the trend continues, it will become even more obvious that Lucene/Solr will start looking stale on SVN. We have enough image problems in terms of being modern at Apache. We will need to manage the ones we can. We should not choose the tools that simply make us fuzzy and comfortable. We should choose the tools that are best for the project and future contributions in the long term. - Mark On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > > > Sure, it's just another channel for contributions. We can still work > with patch files in JIRA. There may be a few git steps (remote add, fetch, > checkout) to pull down the remote code which takes some time getting used > to, but all this is made up for due to Git's super-fast branching. No need > to have a bunch of duplicate svn checkouts lying around or wait for svn to > checkout or merge... > > > > How is it faster? It takes me 25 seconds to pull down a fresh svn > checkout. it takes like 30 minutes to run the tests before actually > committing. > > So, i dont think we should use git for so called "speed" that doesnt > matter (please, instead of arguing for git, spend time fixing the solr > distributed tests to not take ages and ages), or for distributed > features that dont matter (apache has a centralized repository). > > Given that its distinct from the contributor experience and would only > impact committers, i currently see *zero* advantages for switching to > git, only a hell of a lot of disadvantages. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- - Mark
