Re: svn management, git, etc
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:40:18PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:26:46AM -0500, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > /me dances happily when learning that I will have to learn Yet Another
> > Source Control Management System if I want to continue maintaining the
> > debconf l10n.
> >
> > Sure, this is a very minor aspect of the development of X packages,
> > but if my vote has some importance, it would definitely go for "stick
> > with SVN".
>
> FWIW, my vote (now from a purely upstream perspective) is to go with
> git, despite my public reservations about git at the time we moved.
>
> If the eventual goal is to get all the patches merged upstream -- and I
> really hope it is -- then tracking git makes this infinitely easier, and
> infinitely more appealing from both sides to do so.
>
> (But maybe I'm missing something, because I never saw the point of the
> vendor branches.)
Yeah, getting all our patches merged upstream is of course a goal of mine,
so this is heartening. Just out of curiosity, how would git be more helpful
than producing a diff and applying it to the upstream tree, followed by
commit 'n push?
- David Nusinow
Reply to: