On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:51:43PM -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:08 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > However, for several reasons this is not yet feasible, and furthermore > Just for the sake of completeness can you outline those reasons? I'm not saying it won't happen ever, just not yet.
1. The work-in-progress for planning out the migration to the new CVS/SVN box at GNi. The new hardware will be needed regardless of which VCS we will need. 2. See the results (and as-yet unpublished GLEP) of Antarus's Summer of Code research into VCS migrations. I'll include his summary verbatim here: "If Gentoo is to switch now I could only recommend SVN. GIT needs just those few extra features to be a viable canidate. I think if there are volunteers to make GIT work for Gentoo than that would be best. GIT is a better all around tool in terms of technical merits for most development tasks." The upstream GIT developers have started work on some of these changes, as they need them (see the recent scaling problems with gitweb on kernel.org). GIT has improved in the 6 months since Antarus's SoC work was done. 3. In regards to any possible migration, the point of infra is that it is not acceptable to migration to $X now, and then $Y 6 months down the road. Reasons behind this are concerns over loss of data in repeated migrations, and having to revisit various scripts and tools more than otherwise necessary. My personal view (not infra) on it, is that I'm mostly negative about changing VCS at all - I would prefer not to change, because the status quo works very well as it is. If a change is going to be made, it should be taken as a chance to resolve as many different issues at one time as possible, and for that reason I favour GIT over SVN. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpcZAeOdZuz9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
