+1, makes sense Martin. SVN should stay for now, and then maybe later Git if it makes sense.
Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> Organization: Geomatys Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:44 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Transition to Git after 0.3? (was Re: shapefile branch) >I think that a migration to git would be desirable in medium term. But >on my side, I need to learn git more, in particular how to manage >branches with git. The DVS that I know was Mercurial actually. > >SVN works reasonably well for now. However merging is not yet as >efficient than Mercurial (and presumably Git). In particular, giving the >same file copied on 2 branches: > > branches/A/MyFile > branches/B/MyFile > >If we rename MyFile on branch A, then merge with branch B, the changes >done in that file on branch B are lost with SVN, while they are >preserved with Mercurial. Until now I took that limitation as an >incitative to think harder about the module/package/class names in the >first place, and to not move lightly. > >Before I could switch to git, I would need to learn how to perform the >work equivalent to Mercurial's "named branches". Git does not exactly >have the Mercurial concept of named branches, but have something else >providing similar functionality (I think). We also need to investigate >about what will happen to directories other than the standard "trunk", >"branches" and "tags". We have "data", "ip-review", "presentations" and >"site". I'm not sure if those directories are already on the Git clone. > >In summary: migration to Git would requires some work (I think), so >maybe it could be a medium term goal, somewhere after the 0.3 release? > > Martin > > >Le 20/06/13 16:37, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) a écrit : >> I have a simple proposal :) You guys are definitely more Git fans now >>than >> SVN fans. Martin D when he originally came onto the project wanted to >>use >> Git, and was more familiar with it, but took great effort to adopt SVN >>b/c >> ASF support for Git at that time was quite limited. >> >> However, with you here now; with Adam; with Martin; and with a number of >> other folks contributing (Joe W. are you a Git guy?) that are Git fans, >> it's worth revisiting this discussion. However, *after* 0.3 :) Let's >> release >> that using SVN so we don't hold that off anymore. After 0.3 maybe we can >> move to Git if this discussion is favorable. Apache now supports >>writeable >> Git repos (see http://git.apache.org/) and the project's canonical >> repository >> can be Git. We can still mirror to Github, etc., but the bits (and >>really >> the >> work) ought to be happening here at the ASF. >> >> So, discuss please :) FWIW, I'm +1 to move to Git (after 0.3). >
