Ken Moffat wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> ----- > > #?^€^ ! I managed to send the reply to blfs instead of lfs. > > On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 09:16:42PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >> Merging is generally not needed by me, but that may be the reason Armin >> wants to move to git. I can't remember the last time I needed to do a >> merge. >> > > My back story : I used to contribute to CLFS, but I dropped out > when it went to git beccause at that stage i only knew enough to > break things. Since then, I've moved my own buildscripts to git. > I've broken things a couple of times in my own merges, but now I > feel fairly confident in using it. For me, git merge --no-ff -m > "some message" lets me put a message in my git log (probably not > relevant ot LFS/BLFS), and when merges fail (e.g. because I put a > fix in my master branch, then later put a better fix in my > development branch), "git status ; git diff file-with-problem"shows > what needs to be fixed. > > The great benefit of git is in branches - in svn, a branch is "cast > in stone" and is a PITA. In git, branches are just pointers. If > you want to maintain a stable branch, you can cherry-pick specific > commits from another branch (such as master). To do that on LFS or > BLFS, I suspect that things might work better if date changes > in general.ent were separated from other changes - I think CLFS has > usually done that. There have been at least two occasions in the > past when I've thought about branching BLFS, but in svn it didn't > seem worth the pain.
cd ~/BLFS/trunk/BOOK cd ../../branches svn cp ../trunk/BOOK my-new-branch #edit as required svn commit -m "Added new branch.." Well maybe you can do that in git in one line, but how often is that needed? The only time I need that is to do a release. > As has been said, with git you can stash changes, work on fixing > something else, and then go back to them. That is often a great > benefit. > > The big benefit of svn is increasing decimal revision numbers. > Mercurial seems to provide that (as well as hashed commit numbers), > but I cannot see any reason to move to mercurial. When CLFS changed > to git, it appeared that a "gatekeeper" was needed to pull changes, > but freedesktop.org, or at least the xorg parts, appear to have many > people commiting to the master branches. > > I understand why alfs is a good place to try out changes, but it > isn't something I can use (/sources on my development machines is an > nfs mount from my server, I _really_ don't fancy the time it would > take to build there). > > Also, I think Igor has an svn->git feed to github ? I would > welcome his comments. Me too. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
