We could actually use Git in a SVN-like way, and have a central repository like we have now. Then there wouldn't be need for an integrator, everyone can commit stuff themselves. Git would still make it a lot simpler to share and test code *before* it is committed to trunk, and its branch/merge capabilities seem superior to SVN's.
-Lars On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 07:24 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote: > I like Git in theory but I'd prefer people simply be responsible when > making changes then put myself in the position of integrator. We're > all overworked as it is. > > That said, the Git model works well for having a staging area where a > build occurs and unit tests are run automatically for each commit > before puishing to the central repo. I've used this model at work in > the past and it's great, though a lot of setup is involved. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 26, 2010, at 2:19 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Was: Re: [phobos] phobos commit, revision 1553 > > > > > > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 09:32 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> I'd vote one up for git, but it won't fix the builds for us. > > > > > > No, but it would have prevented the problems in the first place, > > because > > people wouldn't commit their changes directly to 'trunk'. > > > > When several people make several changes to the same codebase, it > > can be > > hard to track down exactly which change caused an error. In a project > > like Phobos, where there is a lot of interdependence between > > modules, it > > may even happen that an error is caused by a combination of different > > changes made by different people. > > > > And even when an error is tracked down, it may not be a trivial > > operation to remove the bad code again if there have been a lot of > > changes to trunk after the code was committed. > > > > I'm guessing this hasn't been a problem so far due to the relatively > > low > > number of Phobos developers. But this seems to be changing now. > > > > Like Steve points out, it would be possible to use branches and > > merging > > when making changes. There are some problems with this, though: > > > > 1. dsource's ancient SVN server is terribly bad at merging. > > 2. The branches/ directory would quickly become an unwieldly mess > > if a new branch is created for every little change. > > 3. SVN doesn't really seem to be designed with such a > > decentralised > > coding model in mind. > > > > git, on the other hand, is made for exactly this purpose. > > > > With git, if I make a change to Phobos, I tell you guys: "Hey folks, > > please pull this code from my repo and test it." If there are no > > problems with it, only then may it be included in the next release. > > At > > no point do I commit anything to trunk and say: "Hey folks, I've > > *already* uploaded some not-completely-tested-nor-reviewed change to > > our > > single, common codebase. It may break stuff for everyone in ways I > > hadn't thought of, but hey, there's only one way to find out." > > > > Here are some more links for the curious: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Distributed_revision_control_system > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28software%29 > > > > -Lars > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > phobos mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
