On Nov 11, 2007 1:26 PM, dan sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11-Nov-07, at 10:52 AM, Ulisses Furquim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Nov 10, 2007 10:07 PM, Brian 'morlenxus' Miculcy > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:46:44PM +0100, Michel BRIAND wrote: > >>> Hi, > >> Hi > >>> > >>> Fist, your involvement and wisdom as team leader is respected and > >>> appreciated ! > >>> > >>> Ulisses said: > >>>> Formalising can be a good thing, I think. We could even try to > >>>> change > >>>> our workflow and start using git. What do you think? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes, git is a good trade, everyone noticed that CVS is so slow, and > >>> that's prevented devs from tagging releases in the past. > >> Don't see why people want's to push git, cvs is working and i guess > >> we > >> have better things to do than changing the source management > >> software. > > > > Yes, CVS is working and that's exactly what keeps people not seeing > > how better we would be with git. Being able to commit locally, create > > branches to work on separate features and be able to merge afterwards > > and so on. Once you work with git you notice how things could be > > really easier and how painful it is to work with CVS. > > > > Like I said before we'd have to change our workflow to enjoy all the > > benefits of the decentralized nature of git. However, talking to > > Raster (on IRC) he had a very strong opinion of staying with CVS or > > changing to SVN (unlikely, though). > > GIT has it's own downsides. The main one, and a big one for us I > think, is that it will make people go off and develop features and > just bomb the trunk with them. Chunks of code that are too big to be > reviewed. I know people currently use the commit list to review > patches as they go in, and we send around patches before they're > committed. DVCS has a tendency to break this model.
This is totally bullshit. If you want to have CVS or SVN on top of GIT, you can, it's a subcase of the expected use, but the other way around is not true. > So, while GIT might be great. I don't think it's the right fit for E > development. At most, I'd say go to SVN but even then, CVS works. It > has its limitations but they're limitations we know and we've already > figured out how to deal with. every tool have its drawbacks and limitations, the problem is who is trying to fix those. CVS, for sure, is not trying, neither SVN. > For people that want to use GIT on top of CVS, feel free. There is a > bit more pain but it's do-able. we already do, even some branches are being published at http://staff.get-e.org, but many (me included) just push to CVS at later point, which make it good for development, but loose every history and other useful things. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -------------------------------------- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 17249123 Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
