On Sunday 17 August 2008 17:28:43 James Turner wrote: > I'm using git quite happily, it's working well as a way of tracking my > different threads of development and submitting clean patches. I > hadn't realised there were so many also using it (with different > mirrors) > So, yes, definitely a vote for agreeing on one mirror.
I realise I'm dragging up an old (and repeated) thread here, but the first time round I had no opinion either way and so didn't comment. Before this thread came up, I didn't really see a desperate need to move from CVS; OK, I've seen plenty of odd glitches with it, but nothing worse than (or indeed, as bad as) I've seen when using SVN. I didn't see at all what git brought that was different. In order to see what all the fuss was about, I started using git for my data tree (the only one I'm actively working in.) I am now a thorough convert, to the extent that I cannot even contemplate going back to CVS or SVN. I have never once had my local work overwritten when updating. I have never once had to delete files and re-download them (something that happens quite often with CVS, which periodically (and erroneously) decides that some of my files have been modified and conflict with those in the repo.) I can easily and cheaply keep multiple branches of the data tree, to test my own or other people's changes, or to compare with a clean copy of the data tree. Without requiring commit rights on the CVS server, or using multiple RCS, I can "commit" my own work as often as I want here, and easily revert if something goes wrong. The days of directories full of clumsy "backup" tarballs of my aircraft are thankfully gone! When I want to create a diff for commiting to CVS, I can refer back to my own commit logs to see what all I've done, and not have to rely on my dodgy memory to make a sensible commit message. Merging updates from head is almost a pleasant exercise, and conflicts are handled so much better than with CVS. The main commands work in almost exactly the same way as CVS or SVN. The downsides? Only one; there is no "official" git repo for FG. I've been using the mapserver repo, but it's updated quite infrequently; TOO infrequently for someone who works on the data tree and collaborates with other modellers. Martin has said this is mostly because he doesn't want it to be an unnecessary load on the main CVS server - fair enough, but if several people are using it instead of the CVS server (which I am, and surely others are?) then it probably constitutes a reduction of load on the CVS server. I see zero advantage in moving to SVN - IME it's worse than CVS. It's a just a different implementation of the same thing; git is not, it provides real advantages for everyone, especially (IMO) for those who don't have write access to the main repo. It actually reduces the need for so many people to have that write access too, I think. In short, I would like to bring this subject up again and back what many others have said - that we need an official git repo (at the very least, an official mirror of a main CVS repo). Please :-) Cheers, AJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
