inline On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Frans, > > Git is more popular than hg. And we aren't considering centralized SCM > > you already use centralized scm, and IMHO for a reason: there has > to > be a central trunk so people who want to pull the latest code which has the > commits of the _team_ is stored centrally. > > um, not. Look at how RavenDB is handled, there are plenty of forks, but the mater fork is github.com/ravendb/ravendb There is a HUGE difference between having a central location and centralized SCM. > Local dev might be easier, but you still need to create a central > trunk. > IMHO opting for git over mercurial is stupid as mercurial works > better on windows. > > I am using Git on Windows for a while now, absolutely no issues. I would classify this as nonsense based on very out of date info. > > And yes, there is a HUGE difference between sending a patch and sending > a > > pull request. > > > > a) it is significantly easier to handle a pull request, because it is a > > single command, rather than a set of operations > > creating a patch with svn is easy too. I always find it funny to > read how svn seems to suck these days while it was the best thing since > sliced bread a couple of years ago. Sourcecontrol isn't rocket science and > a > big part of it is management: who does what. > Frans, If you send me a patch, I need to: a) download the patch b) browse to the patch c) select where to apply it d) WAIT until SVN fetches old version of files e) resolve conflicts With git, I need: git pull your-repos master And resolve any conflicts if needed to (usually not). The difference in time & effort is huge. > > > b) it allows you to have your own fork and easily merge future changes > > svn can do that too, but perhaps you simply hate it now so much, > Huh? Frans, if you can, please create a fork of NHibernate using SVN. Then keep track of changes as they come along. > don't know. Just setup a .cmd file with a simple svn command which merges > the trunk with your branch locally. Solve some conflicts (and don't come to > me git solves all conflicts magically, svn 1.5 most of the time has no > conflicts either, or are easy to solve.), commit, done. > > You are talking about svk. I tried that, I was decidedly unimpressed > and as you need a central trunk anyway, there's 1 person who decides > which patches will be merged into the trunk, so things hardly change there. > Nope, all committers have access to the central repo > Only development locally might change, but is that really a problem today? > Yes. Example from recent past, I had a regression show up, I needed to figure out exactly where. The PAIN of going through the log and revision on SVN was acute. > IMHO the problem of writing code is far more complex than dealing with some > scm problem, as ALL have problems and sucky things. > > > c) it means that Joe can pull from you, not just from the master feed > > and when is this an advantage? Well, for example, you might have fixed something that still haven't made it to the main repo. You're developing a framework, where > potentially a lot of code relies on other code in that same framework, (and > in NH it's even worse, almost all namespaces touch other namespaces > directly > or indirectly), Please don't bring that old nonsense up again. > so pulling code outside the main trunk to work on IMHO creates a lot of different 'realities' which are even harder to test than > with a trunk alone. > RavenDB is a great example of how it works. > > tl;dr: scm doesn't solve problems which have nothing to do with scm. > > > FB > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I actually do have a problem with hg. I think that Git is: > > > a) more popular > > > > > > than what, subversion? Perforce? CVS? > > > > > > > b) GitHub has tremendous pull in terms of encouraging > > contributions. > > > c) I saw a huge spike in the amount of people contributing once I > > moved to > > > github. > > > > > > I have a hard time believing that the scc system used is of > > any > > relevance whether a developer is capable of contributing any code. > I > > mean: > > it's not as if someone who changes some code in his own branch is > > suddenly > > able to commit those changes as well: the change has to be > reviewed, > > tested, > > agreed upon and then it's committed. A svn patch is just as simple > > for that > > than any other patch. > > > > I don't deny what you saw on ravendb stuff, I just find it a > > 'coincidence' rather than a correlated event. > > > > FB > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Fabio Maulo > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > And move the code in CodePlex... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Fabio Maulo > > > > > > > > > El 02/11/2010, a las 16:38, Jorge <[email protected]> > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > Hello there, > > > > > > > > I am in the process of downloading the code via SVN, and > it > > is > > > taking > > > > a very long time. > > > > > > > > Can someone please enable Git repo in sourceforge, or > > better yet, > > > move > > > > code to Github? > > > > > > > > Respectfully yours, > > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
