On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:44:46 +0200 Stas Verberkt articulated: > We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two > different > workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, > and the > former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not > really > have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more > about > the production cycle you want to have. > If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) > be in > control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested > changesets > by the community of developers. This community would be more free in > the > manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong > differentiation between "committers" and other people suggesting > updates. On > the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of > committers > and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the > schedule > and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely > simplified.) It is a matter of taste. > > On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a > complete > repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite > "heavy-weight".
I found the information at this URL <http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitConversion> quite interesting, especially the numbers under the "Speed Comparisons" heading at the end. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"