On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah lovely saturday morning and a general technology discussion. > > Ok here is the deal, it is a very common practice to use git for local > versioning and svn or cvs for hosting the code (I do that very often). There > are downsides to this practice. First of all git-svn does not have > external parsing. Git has a similar mechanism subprojects but there is no > bridget between git and svn in this regard, you have to symlink for instance > manually to match the externals. > > Secondly it is a speed issue as well. Git is a distributed filesystem which > does most operations locally and delegates the server to a storage system > only. Which means you have local branches and local commit histories (one of > the reasons why I use it) but the downside is it mirrors literally all > revisions into you local filesystem (which is not as bad as it sounds since > it stores the revisions very efficiently, way more than svn does) which > means the initial mirror of a bigger project takes a very long time. And > there the apache infrastructure which by far > is not our idea comes into the game, having a read only git mirror > speeds up this process much more swiftly. > > As for Andrews argument, this is no bothering from our side, as it seems the > infrastructure people have been working on this for almost a year now and > now have a stable infrastructure and many projects have moved > towards this read only mirror.
+1 exactly and I thought that when I provide some links (git.apache.org, the wiki pages etc) it makes it clear that this is not something that Werner and I are doing :-) Anyway there is a looooooooooooooooooooong on-going discussion regarding GIT; pros/cons all the FUD etc. is discussed on the members list (private, only for members). I recommended to make it more open (community@ for instance); Let's see where we heading Also, if you follow some of the "Apache blogs" you also see that some folks *care* about GIT .... (not only the two of us) -Matthias > > The also seem to think about providing the same fo Mercurial in the future. > > Werner > > > > Mike Kienenberger schrieb: >> >> I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on >> Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly >> possible to do what Andrew suggests. From my limited git >> understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a >> front-end to svn or cvs. >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson >> <andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client >>> that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI >>> clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too? >>> We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see >>> any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples >>> technology fix. But this is just my opinion. >>> >>> Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from >>> the client, not the server. For example, >>> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details >>> how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to >>> SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find >>> a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache. >>> >>> -Andrew >>> >>> FYI: >>> >>> http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn >>> http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html >>> http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> some more infos: >>>> >>>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf >>>> <mat...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >>>>>> core >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, I filed this: >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> (since we already work on 2.0.x....) >>>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.1.x branch >>>>>> 1.2 trunk >>>>>> 2.0 branch >>>>> >>>>> hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-) >>>>> >>>>> -Matthias >>>>> >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.1 trunk >>>>>> 1.2 trunk_1.2 >>>>>> 2.0 branch >>>>>> >>>>>> this also helps the infrastructure people! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>>> >>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>> >>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>>> >> > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
