[Adonthell-devel] Re: git, anyone?

[Kai Sterker]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Chris Frey <address@hidden> wrote:

> If you're personally interested in the switch, I'd say do it.  It's a
> great content manager.
>
> The nice thing is that if you are using git, there's no reason why CVS
> can't be updated alongside, at least in a read-only manner.  That way,
> folks can choose which is most comfortable for them, when testing devel.

That's something that wasn't so clear from the information in the
Savannah git FAQ. However, it sounds like it would be possible to use
git locally (and thus learn something new) without forcing any
potential developer to use it.


> This works mainly because submissions are done via patch, or via git
> from other people's repos (only 1 so far, but I'm hoping for more :) ).
> The CVS repositories are only updated by me.  I don't know if this is a
> drawback for adonthell.

The idea is that all developers can directly commit their work, so
having two repositories (CVS and git) that have to be kept in sync
would complicate things a bit, I think.


> Going this route kinda turns you into the "benevolent dictator" of the
> linux kernel model.  As long as people are free to make their own git
> trees, I think this is a fine model to follow, but others have their
> own opinions.  If the Savannah git repo is open to multiple pushers,
> then a CVS copy might be harder to keep up to date.  I haven't tried this
> myself.

I think that is how it works indeed for Savannah (and it's kind of the
development model I've grown used to). So I would more lean towards
having just one repository only (and all the forks people want to
make, as long as I don't have to care about those ;-)). Seeing how git
works, developers would probably still have their own local
repositories though, which isn't a bad idea. Makes trying out stuff
much less painful ... if it doesn't work it's easy to revert and
there's no need to mess up the master repository with dead branches or
intermediate results.


> I'm definitely a git fan, and would gladly answer any questions I can.
> But the decision obviously should come down to what makes you most
> productive.

Yes.

I personally feel comfortable with CVS or SVN and I would give git a
try too (and I may well do that locally at first). The thing is,
people kept shaking their heads about us still using CVS. I know there
are some disadvantages compared to SVN, but nothing I would consider
essential. I know nothing about git in that respect (i.e. whether
transactions are atomic, whether it's easy to restructure the project
without losing history information, etc.), but I like how it is
distributed and allows pushing/pulling stuff to/from other
repositories.

I'll guess for me, the SCM used won't really affect productivity much,
as checking in or out is usually quick anyway, compared to the actual
coding (or testing of patches). There will be time spent converting
the repository and updating the documentation and some time is
required to make oneself familiar with the new system.

The question is, will others continue to complain that we now use
something "unusual" and unknown to them? So far there has been
positive feedback from Rian as well, so of the people actually active
right now, most seem to like the idea.


Guess I'll give it a shot personally, and if people indeed want to
change the SCM, post release of alpha 3 might be a good time to get it
done.

Kai