On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Alexis Menard <alexis.men...@openbossa.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> 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? > > To the global infrastructure : > - Local history for git. svn log access to the server every time you > call that command. Will improve the load of the server. > - Performance of checkouts/pull as data are send compressed from the server. > > To git user : > - Using git push rather than having to use git-svn (which you need to > keep in sync). > - Simplified workflow, we don't need to mess with git-svn. > - Companies who fork (we all do) can simplify their workflow a bit > regarding branches. > > To svn user : > - Conflict resolving much easier and performant than svn (we have > drivers for changelogs and the default one are much better than svn). > - Local history/blaming/... > - Proper diff coloration (though I'm sure you guys have some magic > scripts using colordiff). > - The staging area, upload what you want/need and keep some work local > - Smaller checkouts
- Bot maintainers : Power outage or network interruption in the middle of a svn checkout/up lock the repo sometimes and you need to manually svn cleanup the checkout (maybe someone have a tool or script to avoid that???). I had much more svn locked repos than git dead checkout because of interruptions. > > The real downside is for the svn users to learn a bit git workflow. > > I'm forgetting stuff for sure. > >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Alexis Menard (darktears) > Software Engineer > INdT Recife Brazil -- Alexis Menard (darktears) Software Engineer INdT Recife Brazil _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev