Lot of good points.> Yep, switching to git would require a lot of work on the project > maintainers' side. Commit hooks, setting up repositories, rewording > policies in terms of the commands of the new tools, and that only to > regain the status the project already has - [...]All of which could be done on a mirror, with pushes to svn during the transition. Once it can be treated as the "official mainline", turn off svn. If it turn out ugly, keep svn.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:54 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote:> Lot of good points. > > > Yep, switching to git would require a lot of work on the project > > maintainers' side. Commit hooks, setting up repositories, rewording > > policies in terms of the commands of the new tools, and that only to > > regain the status the project already has - [...] > > All of which could be done on a mirror, with pushes to svn during the > transition. Once it can be treated as the "official mainline", turn off > svn. If it turn out ugly, keep svn. >Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for example, we have lots of scripts that depend on svn revision numbers - all those could be redone for git, but who wants to do work that they don't have to? What "problem" is it solving? Besides, the git-svn readonly bridge is a great solution for those who want to use git - While I agree that dvcs is better (I use mercurial AND git internally), I just don't see the rationale for forcing those who have adopted svn to their workflow to go through a disruptive switch.> _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110725/22136305/attachment.html>
On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Jason Kim wrote:> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:54 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote: > Lot of good points. > > > Yep, switching to git would require a lot of work on the project > > maintainers' side. Commit hooks, setting up repositories, rewording > > policies in terms of the commands of the new tools, and that only to > > regain the status the project already has - [...] > > All of which could be done on a mirror, with pushes to svn during the > transition. Once it can be treated as the "official mainline", turn off > svn. If it turn out ugly, keep svn. > > Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for example, we have lots of scripts that depend on svn revision numbers - all those could be redone for git, but who wants to do work that they don't have to? What "problem" is it solving? > > Besides, the git-svn readonly bridge is a great solution for those who want to use git - While I agree that dvcs is better (I use mercurial AND git internally), I just don't see the rationale for forcing those who have adopted svn to their workflow to go through a disruptive switch.Great point. A potential conversion to git should be motivated by its benefits - assuming no development policy change - and that benefit needs to be greater than the various costs of conversion. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110725/c0f4fca5/attachment.html>
> > > Besides, the git-svn readonly bridge is a great solution for those who want > to use git >It seems to be a reasonable solution for those individuals who want to use git, but in my experience not for organizations that want to use git, e.g. have a local server with local branches, with many people banging on that while at the same time continuously merging the LLVM mainline in. Perhaps your experience has been different - I have limited experience with git-svn and git-p4, but have found both to be useful only for me working individually. Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110727/a3e2d098/attachment.html>
Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> writes:> Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for > example, we have lots of scripts that depend on svn revision numbers - > all those could be redone for git, but who wants to do work that they > don't have to? What "problem" is it solving?It solves the problem of a third party reintegrating their changes back to upstream. This is very, very difficult with svn because of its centralized design.> Besides, the git-svn readonly bridge is a great solution for those who > want to use gitNo. It does nothing to fix the problem of integrating private work (in a private repository) back to upstream. There are other benefits to moving to git but for me at least, this is the most important. -Dave