Hi Peter, Am 21.07.19 um 11:19 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > Hello Branko, > > On 21.07.19 07:24, Mechtilde wrote: >> Am 21.07.19 um 02:01 schrieb Branko Čibej: >>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, 01:42 Peter Kovacs, <pe...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi brane, >>>> >>>> The threads are linked in my first post. >>>> >>> Thanks ... Sorry I missed those. > you are welcome. No issue. >>> >>>> It is for me a workflow thing. >>>> I need a decentral versioning system instead of a central one. >>>> >>> Which particular "decentralised" feature do you miss most? For example, >>> there's work going on to implement client-side shelving (similar to 'git >>> stash'), it's experimental but available in various forms in the last 3 >>> Subversion (minor) releases >> Most of the missing features were the reason why Git was developed. >> As Peter said SVN is centralized, Git is decentralized. >> With Git you can do your own home branch without publishing for testing. >> And then you can do a Merge Request (on Github it is named Pull Request) >> With Git you need one Repo e.g. with the two branches trunk and 42x. >> With SVN you have two branches to checkout. So you need double space to >> hold the repo locally for testing > I am not sure what you mean, you can do a SVN switch <branch path>, > which IMO does the same thing as you would do in git with git checkout > <branch>. I would probably clone 2 times with git anyhow. So for me > there is no difference. > > Let me recap as use case description. Maybe it is more helpful. > > 1) As a user I want to be able to version my personal changes without > affecting other developers. > > 2) As a user I want to be able to have an intermediate repository, to be > able to checkout on different VMs in order to do private testing before > publishing. > > 3) As a user I would like to alias commands to my need or whish and > trade these settings with others developers in m community. > > 4) As a user I want o be aware how the SVN right management is set. We > had issues with this. This was not the decision in favour for git but > for cWiki. And I add this now, since I do a use case recap :P In fact, it was you having issues with that... ;-) And it was not in the area of our source code. > > 5) As a user I want to be able to design workflows, for commits, > triggering tasks. For example review a commit fron annoymous login, > before commit is done. (The "github" feature ;) ) > >>> I assume you mean git-svn? I'm not surprised. >>> >>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. Looks like nothing short of making >>> svn just another git would make you change your mind. :) >> No. > I have no requirement for SVN to copy git. There are sufficient other > ways to full fill the requirements i have. And we do initiate the switch > after 2 years the decision have been made. That should tell you how > important the switch has been in the last 2 years. > > I have no issues in returning to SVN in future. And I hope SVN sticks > around. I like to have it on work.
SVN will not go away, You will have to use it to access all the other ASF areas. We also will have to maintain it for the 4.1.x branch which will stick around for much longer than I expected. And now it will stay even longer as a move to git will postpone a planned 4.2.0 release (my opinion). Regards, Matthias > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
