From: John R. <jr...@le...> - 2008-10-27 17:01:03
|
David A. Desrosiers wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 08:55 -0700, Victor Boctor wrote: >> Interesting points, see my replies inline. The aim of moving from SVN >> is to get the benefits of a distributed source control where >> developers can work offline, manage multiple branches, easily merge >> changes, apply patches and get contributions from the community. > > You can do this now, without having to deal with moving the upstream > repository from Subversion to Git. Just use git in your local tree, make > your commits and merges there, and then commit to Subversion once you > have you working changeset ready to push. Lots of people that manage > thousands of merges and commits do it this way, including Linus, Randall > Schwartz and plenty of others. > > Granted, Linus uses Git exclusively for the kernel because he wrote it, > but on projects where he does NOT control the upstream repo, he uses git > to manage his work locally and pushes to the upstream repo in the format > they require. > > There is no reason to change the upstream repo to leverage the power of > git. Right, this is exactly what I already do, but we are limited in this because: a) every developer must make their own git-svn clone, which takes ages with SF.net's slow SVN servers b) sharing commits/branches with other developers is not easy c) because of b, any sort of code review system would require branching and such, which is a pain and less friendly in SVN than in Git. I'll post more about what Git will gain us in another email to the list. -- John Reese LeetCode.net |