On 09/16/2015 10:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16 September 2015 at 17:20, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
My impression is that right now one can develop GCC with GIT or SVN (people
are submitting GIT patches all the time). After the conversion, only GIT
will be possible. Does this actually lower the entry barrier and will
attract contributors?
Yes, I think so. "The kids" these days all want to use git, not svn.
That's harder to do because you have to set up git *and* git-svn.
Right. And I find that dealing with the mixture of git and git-svn to
be a real PITA.
ANd it's not just the kids. As an "old fart" who has used a variety of
mechanisms to manage GCC sources through the decades (including some
that were never officially used), GIT wins hands-down.
Wouldn't all this effort be better spent in getting finally rid of CVS for
wwwdocs! If there was a SVN repository for wwwdocs, there could also be a
GIT mirror! Using GIT to commit to wwwdocs, wouldn't that be cool!
Nice try ;-)
No, it wouldn't be cool. For the half dozen commits I make to wwwdocs
per year it would be slightly more convenient. But after comparing
that to the half dozen commits I make to the source code *per* *day*
(on a good day) I really don't care what repo the wwwdocs are in. I
don't do bisections on wwwdocs, I don't keep local branches, and noone
is going to create a Git mirror of wwwdocs on github so they can fork
our web pages more conveniently.
It's worth spending all this effort on the source repo because it's
more important than the wwwdocs repo.
Right. Getting the source repo converted is the big prize here. THe
www docs are a relatively small issue in comparison.
jeff
