On 2009-03-24 22:55-0600 Geoffrey Furnish wrote: > To that end, I'd like to ask Alan specifically, again, to identify with > specificity, what you think the specific requirements for such a transition > would be, from your perspective. > > My own view of this list would be, essentially: > > 1) Preservation of history > 2) Demonstration that checking out tagged versions between SF svn and a > potential git successor repo, results in the same files with the same > attributes.
3) Viable Windows client. (You have previously agreed to this requirement, but it should be formally in the list so there is no uncertainty about it.) Those first three requirements are important. Also, there is an important fourth requirement: 4) A consensus should emerge that we actually should make the move to git. This is obviously not a democracy so it is not a matter of voting, but we do form a small community where we want to encourage each other. Thus, we obviously do not want to railroad anybody with this decision. So I think the best way to proceed here is by consensus. How I would define such consensus is at least a substantial fraction of the active developers are enthused by the idea, and the rest of the developers willing to go along, i.e., nobody adamantly opposed. I am frankly not enthused about the move because I am satisfied by svn for my particular needs, and it will require a fair amount of effort on my part to get up to speed with git. OTOH, I like learning new techniques on general principles, and you are obviously not as comfortable with svn as I am so I would be willing to go along with a change to git. Thus, you can count me in the second group of those willing to help form a consensus on this issue, and I suspect there are others here that feel similarly given that the first 3 criteria above are satisfied. However, I think we need more individuals in the first group, i.e., more of our most active developers who are enthused about the idea before we can claim there is a consensus for it. IOW, I would hate to see us disrupt the PLplot development with such a move if it turns out few of the active developers are enthused about it. I don't think there is much doubt that git is potentially a good alternative for us, and you are obviously working hard at getting PLplot developers educated about git and ultimately enthused about the move to git. Thus, I am pretty sure the required consensus will form given persistence on your part. My opinion, though, is you are starting from relatively small git expertise and enthusiasm for git amongst PLplot developers so it is going to be a fairly long haul. Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.org); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net). __________________________ Linux-powered Science __________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
