On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM, |ALPHA| Mad Professor <[email protected]> wrote: > Anytime soon? We're maintaining our own patches to ioquake3 and I > think it would be easier for us to track the current version with > Mercurial than with SVN.
You can easily keep branches in sync with git plus topgit on SVN repositories. I keep my own ioquake3 patches (actually full branches) for Urban Terror with this method. It's a matter of "git checkout master && git svn rebase && git checkout t/urt && tg update" for me to pull in all of the pending upstream commits and merge it with one of my branches. I have run into conflicts over time and it's easy to resolve since it's a normal git branch. It's always things that I would have to fix even if I was using SVN. I've been doing this for a long time and it's working great for me. It has the full history of my commits and the upstream commits preserved. I have a checkout of the latest code, my branches and the entire history of ioquake3 contained in 33MB. While I wish upstream had a native git repository, this setup is probably as good as it gets for me. Aside from how slow it is to initially get all the entire SVN history and store it, it's lightning fast after that since it's git. I'm probably in the minority who would rather have SVN than hg because I can transparently use git with SVN. Git-svn is bidirectional so you can commit from git to a SVN repository as well. _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
