Re: [arch-dev-public] Git
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for repositories for the official packages? One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive checkout and only have working copies of the packages you maintain. AFAIK, git does not (want to) support this. Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation needs to be updated and the workflow needs to be tested, but are there objections to starting the transition process?
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for repositories for the official packages? One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive checkout and only have working copies of the packages you maintain. AFAIK, git does not (want to) support this. Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation needs to be updated and the workflow needs to be tested, but are there objections to starting the transition process?
If we were to use git, we should have one git repository per package, and also provide one repository which includes all the packages as submodules. This will allow both partial and full checkouts, just like with svn. Cheers, Tom
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:55:21PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for repositories for the official packages? One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive checkout and only have working copies of the packages you maintain. AFAIK, git does not (want to) support this. Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation needs to be updated and the workflow needs to be tested, but are there objections to starting the transition process?
If we were to use git, we should have one git repository per package, and also provide one repository which includes all the packages as submodules. This will allow both partial and full checkouts, just like with svn.
Cheers,
Tom
If packages-repositories would be hosted on a service like github, gitorious, .... it would be a very nice addition. That would open up a lot of opportunity for non-dev/non-tu users to create pull requests in an easy way, leading to possible more input/help from the broad community. In that case i'm very much in favour of this switch. If we only switch to git to switch to git because it is more popular and people are more used to it, I don't see the advantage. For what we are using it, svn is in my oppinion easier to use than git. -- Ike
On 30.09.2013 09:50, Ike Devolder wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:55:21PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan <connor.behan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for repositories for the official packages? One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive checkout and only have working copies of the packages you maintain. AFAIK, git does not (want to) support this. Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation needs to be updated and the workflow needs to be tested, but are there objections to starting the transition process? If we were to use git, we should have one git repository per package, and also provide one repository which includes all the packages as submodules. This will allow both partial and full checkouts, just like with svn.
Cheers,
Tom If packages-repositories would be hosted on a service like github, gitorious, .... it would be a very nice addition. That would open up a lot of opportunity for non-dev/non-tu users to create pull requests in an easy way, leading to possible more input/help from the broad community. In that case i'm very much in favour of this switch.
If we only switch to git to switch to git because it is more popular and people are more used to it, I don't see the advantage. For what we are using it, svn is in my oppinion easier to use than git.
That is an excellent idea that I hadn't even considered yet.
participants (4)
-
Connor Behan
-
Ike Devolder
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase
-
Tom Gundersen