On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
The only way for this to actually happen would be for someone to set up a git repo with a handful of packages and demonstrate that it works better with the usual packaging workflow. That is what was done with SVN and why it was chosen when we switched from CVS.
By the way, I am not sure anyone mentioned that there were actually two proposals for getting rid of cvs : git vs svn And svn won.
From http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003330....
* Getting rid of CVS Last status report, I pointed this guy out. Roman responded with a vote for Jason's SVN proposal. In summary: * Jason has provided us with an svn solution, where sub-directories control the location of the package (i.e. package-name/repos/extra/PKGBUILD will place the package into extra) * Dan has provided us with a git solution that uses named branches to control the location (i.e. a branch named "testing" has changes to PKGBUILDs present only in the testing repo) I'm going to put my weight behind Jason's SVN proposal too, for the following reasons: * There is no reason to manage our packages in a distributed manner * SVN will be an easier transition for some users and developers unfamiliar with the esoteric commands of git. * It has a real implementation * One can use the git-svn porcelain on top of this, to still get the full power if git if they so wish. So, the next steps: Jason, can you provide us with some more details on your implementation, or perhaps something on gerolde as a preliminary system? I'd like to setup something side-by-side for people to use and to play with a bit. This way we can easily flesh out the hairier details. Paul, you did some similar work with repoman, yes? Do you have anything to add to this topic?