Santiago Gala wrote:
> I think git-svn abuses the server a lot, as the subversion server is not
> designed for copying of the whole history.
AFAICS, that's an issue for the Infrastructure Team to address, not the
Incubator.
> > Dw wrote:
> > > I am a bit lost here as well -- what does GiT add to the processes/
> > > workflows common in the ASF ?
> - faster commits, branch switching, pulls and pushs
> - merges, good and persistent merges
> - offline work, offline history diffs
> - rebasing is not such a "feature", but it can be useful sometimes
> - publishing lots of repositories helps surfacing patches that are
> currently hidden until ready for sending/committing
The last one is almost antithetical to how we want people to work. The first
few are something that you could raise with the Subversion folks on [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> The inability of subversion to remember merged results makes working in
> a branch unpractical. Been there, done that, very tricky.
Raise any technical issues with the Subversion folks.
> Turning your "key poing" upside down: "We should not try to impose our
> practices using a technological tool, specially when doing so impairs
> development."
If there is a better SCM *for our way of working* raise that on infra@, too.
> people *against* changes in SCM is blaming a hypothetical introduction
> of git of breaking the ASF practices
No. This is the wrong forum. What we've said here is that there won't be any
deviation from the ASF infrastructure for source control; changing ASF
infrastructure is out of scope for the Incubator.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
