Re: GNOME git repositories?

[danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)]

Today at 22:44, Germán Poó Caamaño wrote:

>> This would encourage developers to use non-central repositories, thus
>> making work of non-developers (think translators, artists,
>> documentors) much harder.  In other words, GNOME "subprojects" would
>> not be able to work with those other repositories as easily as with
>> the main CVS/SVN one.
>
> That is a big misunderstanding about how it works.  Using a distributed
> source system doesn't mean that doesn't exist any central ('main')
> repository.

You misunderstood the point.  Some developers would be using GIT,
others would be using bzr, yet others Mercurial.  And anothers would
stick with SVN or CVS or something else altogether.

And you want translators, who often have problems with understanding
PO file and CVS command syntax itself, to cope with all of these?  At
the same time?  Or documentors who constantly mess up DocBook tags?
(it's not because they are stupid, it's because they are good at what
they do: translate, document, draw, etc.)

If the point is not yet clear:

    Choose *ONE* RCS GNOME-wide, and stick with it

I am not saying they are any worse or better than SVN (actually, I
know they are better, except for the fact that SVN usage is so similar
to CVS that it'll be easier to migrate both developers and
non-developers to it).

> Moreover, it can works the same way it has been working until now.
> The big difference is any contributor can have his or her own copy
> of the repository (as usual) but the whole history.

Not really, if you have to handle both GIT and SVN.  And then add bzr,
mercurial, darcs into the mix.

And don't forget to think of our poor sysadmin team as well, who would
have to maintain central servers for all of these.

Gnome servers should provide enough infrastructure to help develop
Gnome and related software.  We should not aim for project hosting
services, imo (we simply don't have the "resources" to do that).

Cheers,
Danilo