On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:10:10AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 4) If at any point someone would need to download all the packages to > do some general modification (like that with about the Homepage, for > example), we could prepare a set of scripts to do so. With some small > scripts the system should be able to download all the packages from > the different versioning systems, or upload the changes to all of > them. Ideas on this? While I think it's pretty easy to write those scripts, I don't think they're really needed. As Jon wrote, it rarely happens, and writing a for loop for that situation isn't a problem at all. > 6) As Vincent said, each package should be in just one repository. No > redundancy allowed, as it would only be a source of problems. Very much agreed. > Of course this is just the opening of a discussion about it, do not > take this mail as if any decision has been taken or anything like > that, it's just my personal opinion on the subject at the moment. I'm > a bit concerned about in what way our way of doing things might change > if we decide to go ahead, and what the pros and cons would be, but I'm > not scared of innovation, so I'm open to it if it's worth it. We're a > dynamic team after all. I like what I've seen from git so far, although for my workflow there isn't much difference with svn. The biggest change is that I don't have to wait for network so often, and that I can do several commits without an internet connection (and upload them to the server later). I like some things about the "distributed" way it works, but I don't care that much, since I want a central server anyway. On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:56:18PM +0000, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 08:18:28PM +0100, Vincent Fourmond > wrote: > > (stupid?) question: would it hurt to have two > > repositories for the team ? One in SVN, one in git ? Of > > course, each package should be in one repository only > > (else, that would be a mess). > > Personally, I'd quite like to duplicate one or so packages > in SVN and git to "learn the ropes" and see how things > worked on the git-side. However, perhaps keeping my > work-flow SVN oriented would mean I wouldn't really see the > advantages of using git this way. Creating the possibility to let things get out of sync would become a huge problem, I think. It's probably easier to start with a new package. The packaging of gfpoken is currently still in the upstream repository. This might be a good time to change that. :-) I took over upstream some time ago, and I don't have a problem with it. ;-) > I know of at least one external package that remains so because the > maintainer doesn't like SVN; I'll see if he likes git. If so, maybe I > can trial git with that one. If we decide to try git, also feel free to try it with gfpoken. While the packaging is in the upstream vcs, it isn't in the released tarball, so there's no problem in moving it to alioth, even without a new upstream release. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature