+1, Mark. Git isn't perfect; I sympathize with the annoyances pointed out by Rob et. all. But I think we would be better off for it -- a net win considering the upsides. In the end I'd love to track changes via branches (which includes forks people make to add changes), not with attaching patch files to an issue tracker. The way we do things here sucks for collaboration and it's a higher bar for people to get involved than it can and should be.
~ David Mark Miller-3 wrote > I don’t really buy the fad argument, but as I’ve said, I’m willing to wait > a little longer for others to catch on. I try and follow the stats and > reports and articles on this pretty closely. > > As I mentioned early in the thread, by all appearances, the shift from SVN > to GIT looks much like the shift from CVS to SVN. This was not a fad > change, nor is the next mass movement likely to be. > > Just like no one starts a project on CVS anymore, we are almost already to > the point where new projects start exclusive on GIT - especially open > source. > > I’m happy to sit back and watch the trend continue though. The number of > GIT users in the committee and among the committers only grows every time > the discussion comes up. > > If this was 2009, 2010, 2011 … who knows, perhaps I would buy some fad > argument. But it just doesn’t jive in 2014. > > - Mark ----- Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/The-Old-Git-Discussion-tp4109193p4110109.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
