[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Plans?

From: Edward Ned Harvey (rdiff-backup)
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Plans?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:25:33 +0000

> From: Kevin Fenzi [mailto:address@hidden
> I'd be willing to try and help out though... perhaps I could assist
> with bug triage? Many of the bugs I get on the fedora side are just
> user error or issues with filesystems, etc and can be closed out once
> people fix the underlying issue. Looks like there's 69 bugs in
> savannah. I don't know if I need any privs there, but would be happy to
> try and go close obvious ones and ask for info on others, etc...

That sounds extremely helpful.  For me, time is of course, also the issue.  
(And I probably shouldn't be writing this at work.)   ;-)  But I'm self 
employed, so I'm not at risk of punishing myself.  I'm just not spending my 
time billing somebody right now, when I should be.  But I like doing this, so 
here I am.    ;-)   Beats doing facebook or tweeting at work.  Fundamentally 
the same thing.  Writing on the internet.

If you wouldn't mind, doing exactly as you say - seeing what obvious low 
hanging fruit exists, and trying to get more info about that, it would 
definitely be time well spent.

Also, I don't know if you'll need permissions either.  So simply getting the 
answer to THAT question will already represent forward momentum.  ;-)  I now 
have obtained nearly all the permissions on this project, so I think I should 
be able to grant that.

> Another unrelated thing... currently source is in svn. Git is the new
> hotness, perhaps it would be worth seeing how hard it would be to
> migrate?

You're right.  Until a couple weeks ago, it  was under CVS.  And I shyly with a 
slight little gesture of embarassment, converted to svn intentionally instead 
of git.  From a technical standpoint, I do personally think git will be better 
than svn for this project, but my motiviation for selecting svn was thus:

I mentioned I do a lot of IT.  I've deployed many svn and git deployments for 
various companies over the last several years.  Most of the time, you can't 
have a balanced conversation about it; Linus started it, and there exists 
nowadays, a culture of git-over-svn elitism, which is sometimes accurate and 
sometimes not.  The real truth is, each is a tool (neither Linus nor the 
Internet at large are always fair or well-balanced), each has different 
characteristics, and each tool is better for some situations.  In this case, as 
an OSS software project, git is the *ideal* solution.  But we don't have any 
development effort taking place, and as I said, I've deployed and supported a 
lot of svn and git.  Even in software groups full of pro software developers, I 
see this trend over and over:  The learning curve for git is much longer.  If 
you can use git, you can definitely use svn (although you might poo-poo it).  
Svn is way simpler to setup and understand.  So the reason I chose svn for this 
project is to not-inhibit uptake of new developers.

I figured, being forced to learn CVS would legitimately be an obstacle to 
acquiring new developers.  I figured svn will not be an obstacle.  I figured 
git is a double-edged sword.  As you said, it's "the new hotness," (or "hot 
mess?")  ;-)  but I don't believe running git will *attract* new developers.  
("Hey, did you hear, rdiff-backup is being developed on git.  Sounds like a 
good reason to join them...")    heheheh  ;-)      #join-rdiff-backup-on-git

There are still a bunch of people out there who know svn because of work and 
haven't surmounted the obstacle of learning git...  I chose svn to be 
conservative and avoid creating any obstacles for new developers.

Anybody who's in love with git is probably already using git2svn for other 
projects ...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]