Re: Switching to git

[Pablo Saavedra <pablo.saavedra@lambdastream.com>]

Hi @All, please accept one consideration,

I've observed that you are using SVN repositories on multi-project
way. In this case,
if you'd want migrate to Git or BZR (I'll use the last one as inline
examples), you must consider the different behavior of the source tag
managing.

#. In SVN, tags are explicited on dir. structure as follow::

     <package>/branches
            /tags/<package>-x.x.x-X
            /trunk/...


   But on BZR, for example, you tags are implicit::

     $ bzr tags
     x.x.x-X
     x.x.x-Z
     y.x.x-X

   Because of this behavior, you should consider if you want use BZR
as CVM for multiple projects. In this case you'd get a mixed of tags::

     $ bzr tags
     ...
     nose-1.1.3-1
     nose-1.1.3-2
     notify-python-0.1.0-1
     notify-python-0.1.1-1
     notify-python-0.1.1-2
     nose-1.1.4-1
     ...

  This can be a lot of fuzzy.


#. If you decide to have one repository for each Debian source
package, then you will
   lost the comfort of manipulate/move/... all the source package with a
   simple "commit/mv/checkout/...".

#. I (and I suppose many others) have enough experience with
svn-buildpackage but less with other buildpackage tools based on other
CVMs.

Any change in the CVM implies much efforts for members of your teams.
Is really necessary attacking this change now? (It's only a doubt ;-))
s

Regards.

2011/3/6 Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>:
> On Sunday, March 06, 2011 03:02:25 pm Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > One thing that is a clear advantage for bzr is that it supports both a
>> > traditional centralized workflow and modern DVCS workflow so that not
>> > everyone needs to switch to a foreign method of work immediately after
>> > the transition.
>>
>> AFAIK any DVCS could be used in a 'centralized' fashion -- just choose
>> the central repository everyone should use for their pushes (e.g. like
>> we would already have for team maintained packaging).  Moreover git
>> provides git cvsserver, so hard-core CVS users do not even need to
>> switch away from CVS client.
>>
>> Personally, bzr always gave me creeps, and I never managed to get peace
>> with HG (probably problem is in me, not in GIT).  And despite being
>> pro-Python myself, I hated all those tracebacks I received from HG and
>> bzr -- most of the time they were close to useless for me as the user.
>
> With bzr the transition from svn is a little easier than that.  Almost any svn
> command you would use, the same command works with bzr, e.g. svn co and bzr
> co.
>
> Since we're using svn, I don't think cvs clients are particulalry relevant.
>
> I find bzr to be very reliable in the projects I use it on (where people are
> using Debian, Ubuntu and some *bsd variants).  It also seems it's learning
> curve is less steep than git's.  While that's less of an issue for attracting
> contributors who are already active in Debian since git is widely used in the
> project, it is an issue for bringing in new contributors.
>
> I think a bigger issue for the team to reach consensus on than which $DVCS to
> use is the repository format.  With a $DVCS will be still just keep the
> packaging in the team repository or will we move to full source code +
> packaging repositories?
>
> Scott K
>
> P.S. No need to cc me.  I am subscribed to the list.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 201103061601.05174.debian@kitterman.com">http://lists.debian.org/201103061601.05174.debian@kitterman.com
>
>



-- 
Pablo Saavedra Rodiño
Systems & Maintenance Leader
t:+34 981 17 33 44 ext.27
pablo.saavedra@lambdastream.com
www.lambdastream.com