Not officially voting just yet as I'd like to see this really thrashed out. Switching to a different SCM system can isolate users who don't know how to use it. Git is complex. Much more so than Subversion. It may be more powerful but that doesn't mean a lot to the average user who wants to fix something locally.
Also, as Bruce mentioned, local institutions may be using Subversion and switching this over could be a major barrier for community participation. Personally, I am in favour of the move, but after uP4 is well out the door and stable enough that critical bugs don't need fixing in short timelines. Also, I'd like to see some discussion of how this will play out with the Sakai-Jasig merger. As Cris pointed out, Sakai (CLE) is a heavy user of Subversion and svn:externals, and it works really well. There may also be some broader strategy that will pan out as the merger progresses - I am sure that some areas of both Sakai and Jasig will receive attention so that they are brought in line with each other. So switching SCM now might be a bit premature. http://groups.google.com/group/jasig-sakai-collaboration regards, Steve On 01/09/2011, at 8:27 AM, Cris J Holdorph wrote: > I'm currently working on a project that's doing something with Sakai. If you > ever look at Sakai you'll find out they are big users of svn:externals. > Anyway, we're trying to use Git and we're using a moderately complex system, > in order to accomplish something that's kind of like a cross between > subversion vendor drops and svn:externals. > > If you're interested in the details let me know, I'd be happy to discuss them > with you. Unfortunately I can't type them all out here, because I don't have > all the details myself, I need to talk to another team member on the project. > > ---- Cris J H > > On 08/31/2011 01:29 PM, Bruce Tong wrote: >> There's a command line interface, cool. >> >> Does git have anything like svn:externals? A quick search brought up a >> few pages that lead me to believe it might be an issue, though if a >> read-only SVN repository is still part of the plan, maybe that covers >> it. I'd have to do more research. >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Eric Dalquist >> <eric.dalqu...@doit.wisc.edu> wrote: >>> Some questions that I can try and answer before they come up: >>> - The uPortal code in svn at source.jasig.org would likely be left in place, >>> we would just make the entire /uPortal directory read-only >>> - We're going to filter out the documentation and website files that were >>> included in early versions of uPortal 2 to reduce the project repository >>> size. >>> >>> Since this is a big change (and since I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks >>> starting Friday) I'm planning on leaving this vote open for a while. +1, 0, >>> -1 to vote and if you vote -1 you need to include a detailed reasoning for >>> your -1 vote. >>> >>> -Eric >>> >> >> >> > > -- > You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: > steve.swinsb...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev -- You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
