sh at lutzhaase.com
Mon Sep 30 03:51:13 EDT 2013
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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-dev-public