Re: GNOME git repositories?
- From: Kevin Kubasik <kevin kubasik net>
- To: Germán Poó Caamaño <gpoo ubiobio cl>, Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME git repositories?
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:20:09 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I think that at the moment, the SVN is all that should really be
considered. Quite simply, we already had this discussion, and we decided
that after a cost-benefit analysis, SVN was the way to go. Now this
doesn't rule out later migration to git or a distributed system, but for
2 days from now, its a svn migration going down, and its really not a
good time to change that, as SVN offers some major improvements over
CVS, and at the moment we are looking at a somewhat painless migration.
That being said, I am a huge fan of git, and distributed systems in
general, and would not object to there being a discussion of moving the
gnome development system (as a whole) to a permanent distributed system.
However, to fill the gap for all those who have a distributed RCS
fetish, check out SVK, and bzr can pull/push to/from svn, just work your
project that way and keep svn up to date with your changes.
Danilo Šegan wrote:
> 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')
> 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).
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
] [Thread Prev