Le Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:01:10PM +0100, Teemu Ikonen a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Andreas Tille <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Teemu Ikonen wrote:
> > - Would you volunteer to convert the existing SVN completely
> > to git and convince others to use git from a certain point
> > in time?
> Even in team maintenance there are people who work more on some
> packages than others and these persons should decide for themselves
> what tools they want to use.
Hi all, hello Teemu,
I would have nothing against moving to git, except that I would be
unhappy to hear six month later than mercurial or bazaar is better and
that we should change again.
This said, I think that we will have to do some ground work on our
repository soon: the current layout makes it impossible to checkout
without the tags directories, and this starts to be significantly
heavier than the trunk. This reorganisation would be an opportunity for
a change of VCS, but I would nevertheless recommend to do this after the
As for the packaging strategy, I am still attached to the concept of
having our changes organised into patches. This makes easy for users to
de-activate some by just changing the debian/patches/series files, and
presents the information in an organised fashion. It also keeps the
checkouts much slimmer; last time I did a full checkout it was already a
bit annoyingly slow (despite I have optic fiber at home).
Would it be easy with git to have one repository with only the original
tarballs, one with the debian directories, and to merge them optionally
on local computer if needed ? From time to time, having a full chechout
of the upstream sources could also be useful.
PS: apparently, it is not possible to do something similar to the
MergeWithUpstream option of svn-buildpackage with git-buildpackage. This
complicates things a lot.
Have a nice day,
Wakō, Saitama, Japan