MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote: > Hi, > > Ok I'm not direct contributor to LFS and F can understand that > translation stuff isn't the priority of the upstream devs. However, I'd > like to tell you that with git, it became painful to translate > cross-lfs. We are now unable to release at the same time, synchronously, > because unable to understand the revisions, branches, and fuzzy commit > reports. Probably we sohuld learn git, but F've tried for years without > success. So spending again a while on this would be painful. All the > more as for BLFS, project very stressed due to its size, any freeze > would be somewhat a problem (disappoint the contrib, taking delay). For > translators, it would imply to update our utilities, mandatory to be > efficient with blfs given the size of the project. Again here, git will > be painful. > > Finally I think svn is suit to the lfs project and its current workflow. > But it's only my opinion. It could deal with a new branch such as > systemd without pain, and translating it will be possible as soon as a > contrib ask it. And if, someday, systemd becomes trunk, we'll translate > it (I don't know what's the state of this debate in lfs team because > writing the bootscripts was a big work for Bruce). > > That's why I'd really ask to be careful switching to git, and please > help us, because it's a pitty to change what works to something so > unsafe in project management matter. Unsafe not due to the tool, but to > the men who use it.
I wouldn't call it unsafe. There are a lot of projects using git. I do think there is a non-trivial learning curve. That said, we will very carefully consider the proposal for using git. We will not change unless we see some specific advantages that out-weigh the disadvantages. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
