Am 08.03.2012 um 23:30 schrieb Alexis Menard: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> 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.
*) Easier way to setup local mirrors (for buildbots). See discussion at https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2012-March/019699.html > > 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 > > The real downside is for the svn users to learn a bit git workflow. > > I'm forgetting stuff for sure. - Patrick _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
