Unless there's some compelling technical reason for keep SVN, of which I am unaware, I am +1 on switching to Git. If nothing else, from an "optics" perspective it keeps potential new contributors from looking at the project and thinking "SVN? WTF? Why is this project using obsolete tech like that???"
NOTE: I am not saying SVN is obsolete... but I expect a lot of devs do think it is, given how faddish the tech world is. And I wouldn't advocate switching for the sake of switching if Git weren't genuinely a good, probably better, option in it's own right. All of that said, this definitely shouldn't hold up an imminent release. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Herbert Duerr <h...@apache.org> wrote: > On 09/18/2017 06:30 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Herbert Duerr <h...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 09/17/2017 04:04 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>> On 14/09/2017 Dave Fisher wrote: >>>>> does SVN vs. GIT prevent new developers from volunteering? >>>> >>>> I think this is the key question, even though there are many good points >>>> also in what others replied. >>>> >>>> We currently have a couple semi-official GIT mirrors: one on Github in >>>> the ASF organization page and the internal one Herbert pointed out. I >>>> also remember that Herbert once presented a big GIT repository he had >>>> built with all the available history of the OpenOffice code, but I don't >>>> know if it is available somewhere. >>> >>> I had that 2GB blob on my Apache homepage for a couple of years. When >>> that home was migrated to the newer locations it was apparently dropped. >>> Unless someone mirrored the blob it is currently not available anymore. >>> If anyone is really interested in that ancient history I can probably >>> resurrect it unless 2+GB blobs are no longer allowed in committer's home >>> directories. >>> >>> >> That would be great. I need the old repository to regression test an old >> bug in Base. However, is it legal to have commits from the pre-ASLv2 era? > > The related presentation is still available at [1], and I found my blob > of the historic repos in [2]. Enjoy! > > [1] http://home.apache.org/~hdu/HistOOory_Presentation.pdf > [2] https://dev-www.libreoffice.org/extern/HistOOory_v0.9.zip > >>>> I believe that the interested developers (including me, at times) use >>>> the git-svn tool when convenient. I think that this is enough to allow >>>> the local workflow improvements Damjan was requesting. Or do you see >>>> reasons not to use it? >>> >>> OpenOffice is only a small part of the Apache subversion repository that >>> contains many more projects. Most revisions in that repo are not for OOo >>> and git-svn apparently has a hard time with this. It is possible but not >>> much fun. >>> >>> >> Excellent insight. Never thought of that. git-svn is almost unusable then. > > I think that it could be possible to improve git-svn in cases such as > the multi-project Apache svn-repository, but that scenario + devs in an > svn-project using git as their main repo tool is unusual enough that it > is not worth too much optimization effort. > > Herbert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
