Re: Distributed SCM in Gnome (Was: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?))

["Alberto Ruiz" <aruiz gnome org>]

2007/9/16, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>:

Ok, lets be fair:  most people who care about hacking on GNOME already
know git, why should other options be selected?  Seriously, kernel is
using it, freedesktop.org is using it, and KDE is considering it.  Git
is one of those ones you need to learn at some point anyway.  Bazaar on
the other hand from what I see is a Ubuntu/Canonical focus and
Mercurial's biggest deployment, yet to be finished, will be Mozilla.
I've seen many Mozilla hackers regret that they are not moving to git.

Well, you forget about OpenSolaris here ;-)

I don't think choosing git just because others did is a good way of making choices in general. Although I agree with you  to some extend that choosing the same than freedesktop makes some sense to keep the toolchain smaller.

I think that an impartial decision has to be made. I wonder if organizing a team of two or three people to evaluate git/hg/bzr to make the decision and just trust their decision would be such a crazy idea?

Was going to add these to the wiki page, feel free to do:

  - Keith Packard did a fairly extensive research of which DSCM system
to use for xorg and other fd.o projects, from a storage robustness /
performance point of view, and he wrote this excellent piece:

  http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html

Well, the only argument to not choose mercurial was "the X.org needs". Which needs are those? Do we have those needs?

To be honest, I don't really care, so far the only one that I've tried seriously is git as I have, and I've had issues loosing files after commits, I'm pretty sure I'm using git incorrectly, but git is not warning me about it anyway so I'm a bit upset.

I'm pretty sure other options has its own issues, but I think the only way to avoid an endless discussion is to ask someone to evaluate the three tools in the discussion and just trust him/them.

-- 
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz