[GT] Re: Re: Re: Future of GeniusTrader

[Chia-liang K. <cl...@cl...>]

Hi all,

Allow me to add something while we talk about version control systems.
 I am currently using git against the GT svn repository, while i am
trying hard to get many of my patches back, not because the main
repository is a central repository that I am forced to merge back like
thomas said, but it's because i want my changes to be useful to
others, and collaborate on the same main line in the future.  If a
contributor somehow does not want to get his changes back, it's more a
social issue of than a technical issue caused by the tools.

Personally I prefer to see the official repository to be in git, where
all the committers can push to like a central repository.  while
contributors can maintain their changes more sanely (which they can do
with git against svn anyway), the eventual merge on the mainline
records more meta data.  And it does make accepting patches easier for
the maintainers and attract more contributors IMO.

Now back to GT itself.  I think it's a great toolbox like others
mentioned, that we can build flexible system/ui atop of it, and the
core should stay this way with lots of tests and cleaner internals/API
for people to keep building things on it.  Whether other improvements
become part of GT is another story for the developers to agree on
later.

Cheers,
CLK

2009/10/16 Thomas Weigert <we...@ms...>:
> Erik,
>
> as you know, I think we should stay with svn.
>
> Git (or Mercurial, which is probably better) are distributed version control
> systems. They work great when you have a situation where developers work
> disconnected from the "main" repository, do their own version management on
> that branch, and eventually merge it back.
>
> The big risk there is that developers work too long on their own repository
> so that eventually the branch does not come back any more.
>
> Because svn is a single repository system, branching is still within the
> same repository and developers are forced to merge back to the trunk more
> regularly.
>
> I don't think we are in a situation where we would be benefiting form the
> advantages offered from distributed version control (developers disconnected
> but able to version manage their branch) but we will be suffering from its
> disadvantages (no central repository).
>
> Your struggles, I believe, had nothing to do with git or svn, but with the
> fact that you were not allowed to check in.
>
> Best regards, Th.
>
> Erik Colson wrote:
>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Le jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Thomas Weigert a écrit :
>
>
> I think we should continue in above two pronged mode for the time being
> until a
> community process develops. As for that I propose that everybody who desires
> gets immediate access to the CPAN branch. Robert will continue to maintain
> the
> trunk.
>
>
> I don't want to bother with partial commit access. Once commit access is
> granted, the contributor can commit anywhere, of course we can have a
> policy of requiring Robert's approval for trunk, but it would not be
> enforced by technical means.
>
>
>
> I would prefer if you were to permit the quick access for developers to the
> CPAN branch, so that I can abandon the mirror.
>
>
> So what account shall I create ?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Hi Raphael,
>
> Would be great if I could commit directly to the CPAN branch.
> I'll resume coding around 20th octobre and hope finish a release of
> Finance::GeniusTrader to CPAN by the end of the month ;)
>
> As you mentioned it kindly ;) and since you are at the start of
> GeniusTrader, it would be great to have the repo officially ported to your
> Git host :)
> As Thomas will agree, I struggled to death when starting the CPAN branch,
> and my biggest fear is to loose dev time again syncing with the repo again
> ....
>
> You might consider the alternative of putting the repo on Github. Works
> great and has very nice graphs, wiki etc. and it's free also !
>
> regards
>
> --
> Erik Colson
>
> http://www.ecocode.net