Re: [Debconf-team] SVN -> GIT migration
On 13/08/12 15:47, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Richard Darst <rkd@zgib.net> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> (a bit late, but...)
>
> From the timing I'm not sure if your mail was sent before you read my
> last mail to this thread [1] or afterwards. Could you please clarify if my
> mail addresses your concerns or which ones are still an issue with the
> latest proposal.
>
> If possible I would like to have a decision about the conversion and the
> proposed repository access procedure during the meeting tonight.
>
> Gaudenz
>
> [1] id:"87ipdflb2v.fsf@meteor.durcheinandertal.bofh"
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 01:49:10PM -0600, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>>>
>>> [git conversion things]
>>
>> I have talked to Moray about this, and we both basically agree (but
>> the words here are mine)... but it seems the main advantage to git is
>> that it is cool, not that it's better for this case.
It is not just cool - it is technically better, e.g. the hashes are much
more reliable than SVN commit numbers
It is also a one way trend: more people are learning git, less people
taking up SVN.
>> First and foremost is the institutional memory. If you want to work
>> on DebConf N, you're going to want to know about DebConf N-1 and N-2
>> and N-3 and so on. As a specific example, I imagine DC13 people are
>> going to be interested in getting sponsors now. The DC12 and DC11 and
>> so on repos will be good for that - depending on how hard you scrape,
>> you may want all of them. So... that means continuing to give people
>> access to old repos, nullifying the "security" here? Or go and copy
>> over previous years to the current repo each time?
>>
>> git is good for code. It has tons of nice features like branching and
>> local copies. But I have always thought that subversion is fairly
>> ideal for our use case.
git can let people make local branches for things they are not ready to
share - that is not just useful for code
Bottom line: my vote is in favor of git
Reply to: