On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:19:05PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> I agree with you. Appart from the complexity that git induces, I
> still don't see at all the benefits of using a distributed CVS for
> simple source trees like packages. It really seems to me that the
> only motivation was a sort of trend.
Well, possibly it is a trend, but (personally) once I got used to git,
I can hardly stay without its commodities [1] even if the work-flow is
by no means distributed.
> Anyway, the (vast) majority has ruled out the decision. I only hope
> I will still be able to maintain my packages with svn for the time
> being...
Nevertheless, I've never wanted to impose my preferences to anybody
else here, that's why we voted on it. And that's why I was assuming,
in real good faith, that the default of "let's migrate everything to
git" was OK by, erm, default.
That said, no objection in keeping some packages in svn when their
usual maintainers prefer so, just be sure the other co-maintainers are
aware of that.
Cheers.
[1] shameless list of things you really might want to build your work
upon, things that svn is missing:
- git add -p
- git commit --amend
- the speed of git commit / git log
- ability to work offline (on a train!)
- no more "svn cleanup" (thanks $GOD)
- more Debian-specific, and possibly more corner-case:
- having the upstream sources around, and not relegated in a
.tar.gz somewhere else (I agree that this is a "bug" of our
svn workflow, not of svn itself)
- multiple branches to maintain patches, which are automatically
generated from them
- following an upstream which is using git
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature