It seems like there are a couple of different issues here that affect how we do version control. Currently we have an SVN primary repository, some contributors use SVN, and others use git via git-svn.
It seems like there are two possible changes we can make, and it is not really clear to me which is being advocated: 1) Offer only a git repository; everyone uses git. 2) Use a git central repository; but some form of svn access is provided (is this even possible?) And then there is the status quo: 3) Continue doing what we're doing; central repository is svn, but anyone is free to use git and we try to make it convenient to do so. One interesting asymmetry here is that, while many git users proseltyze git and advocate total removal of svn support from our tools and infrastructure, no one seems to advocate completely removing git support. So I left that option off. There are also other distributed version control systems out there such as Mercurial or Bazaar, but no one seems much in favor of using them for WebKit, so those options are also left off. If we are to assess these options in a deeper way than just everyone saying what they personally like, we need to identify the pros and cons of options (1) and (2) relative to (3). That's assuming (2) is even possible. It seems like there are at least a few factors to consider: A) Future quality of life for current git users. B) Future quality of life for current svn users. C) Benefits of the master repository being either git or svn, regardless of what clients are supported. (For example, many folks seem to think human-understandable revision identifiers is a benefit of the master being SVN). D) Cost to the project of maintaining support for two different version control systems. Git advocates on this thread have mostly focused on convincing svn users how much they'd like using git instead. It seems at least some svn users do not believe their quality of life would improve by switching to git, including some who have actually tried git. No one has really identified what benefits there would be to git users if a change is made. Could someone describe those? Regards, Maciej On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Antonio Gomes wrote: > (For those valuable contributors who are against Git and have manifested > somehow here, please do not take it personally) > > IMO, none of the arguments used here so far seem like a real problem for a > switch. Of course, SVN people would have to adapt their workflow and it could > take days (no more than that, trust me), but it is for a greater goal at the > end. > > In my opinion, SVN concepts are completely obsolete these days. It is hard to > me to even hear someone arguing in favor of SVN against GIT, but I respect > anyone's opinion. I just do not feel them strong enough given the whole > context. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Joe Mason <jma...@rim.com> wrote: > It seems to me that there's no need to use multiple local branches in git if > you find it confusing - it's an additional feature, but I don't see anything > that requires it. > > What workflow do you have that requires you to have multiple branches locally > in git, and how do you solve it in svn without using branches? > > What precisely do you find difficult about merging remote changes, and how is > the svn equivalent easier? > ________________________________ > From: webkit-dev-boun...@lists.webkit.org > [webkit-dev-boun...@lists.webkit.org] on behalf of Ryosuke Niwa > [rn...@webkit.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:00 PM > To: Ashod Nakashian > Cc: WebKit Development > Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Moving to Git? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ashod Nakashian > <ashodnakash...@yahoo.com<mailto:ashodnakash...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > >And that's a show stopper for me. For build bot maintenance, regression > >fixes, etc... being able to easily tell the number of commits between two > >revisions (in my head as opposed to using a tool) or the ordering of commits > >is crucial. > > I think this is an interesting point. It seems there are two solutions. We > can enforce fast-forward as many have pointed out and we can maintain an SVN > mirror. Although I don't like the idea of maintaining an SVN repo, and it's > almost universally agreed that git offers superior tools to SVN. > > I don't think so. I like the simplicity of svn. While git client works great, > I always get frustrated by the complexity of having multiple branches locally > and the amount of work required to merge the remote changes on the branch I'm > working on. > > - Ryosuke > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential > information, privileged material (including material protected by the > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public > information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, > please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your > system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this > transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > > > -- > --Antonio Gomes > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
