Re: {debian,pkg}-science repository
Hi Daniel,
I just came across this email after sending a comment to your email
regarding tags (darn webmail), so this is somehow related.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 4:52 pm, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 09.05.2008, 13:40 +0200 schrieb Manuel Prinz:
>
> [..]
>> I also do care about the VCS. Personally, I'm very happy with Git that I
>> tried after last DebConf after hearing so much good things about it;
>> they turned out to be true. ;) The biggest disadvantage with Subversion
>> is that one can not work effectively when being offline; I also like
>> Gits branching feature while experimenting with different changes in the
>> package. Nevertheless, if the choice is Subversion, I can be happy with
>> that too.
>
> Shouldn't git-svn help here?
My experience with it is quite good but I don't feel comfortable with it
for several reasons. (I'll skip those here.)
> I like git, but subversion is IMHO the perfect choice for small
> packaging projects without special needs. I mean: Why do you need
> feature branches, if you just apply a few patches, which you also send
> to upstream (so you can drop them with the next release). [...]>
> I hope, you don't misunderstand my comment as flamebait.
I do not consider this as flame. You brought up your concerns which is a
Good Thing, IMHO.
I do not always need things like feature branches in packaging, that's
true. But I also like to have them available at least locally. OK, git-svn
would solve that but one needs to synchronize these copies which is
introduces more work than necessary. Also, depending on how you use git
for packaging, you can get rid of a patch system completely.
> But before you decide to force people to use special tools [1], you
> should think about
> the advantages and the disadvantages and possible compromises. And I
> still think, git-svn sounds like a good compromise for svn and git users
> and one should check, if it maybe can be used to connect svn.d.o and
> git.d.o (and if it can handle feature branches and patch systems), which
> would be ideal for both sides.
I do not want to force anyone to use this or that tool and am sorry if I
gave that impression. I just made my experiences with both systems and Git
simply fits my work flow a lot better. Of course Subversion is suitable in
most cases so I think you do not loose anything when using Git but you can
gain something if Subversion stops fitting to your needs. This is just my
very biased personal opinion. As said, I can live with either tool. Also,
I could think about using different VCS in the debian-science approach, if
it's supplied at a per-package basis. (As stated in my other mail, I think
having one huge meta-package for several source packages is not a good
approach and I'd like to avoid that right from the start.)
Best regards
Manuel
Reply to: