Hey Derek, a few notes on this, from a patch submitter's point of view :-)
> >> So.. Feel free to play with git. But don't expect your SHA history to > >> remain 100% complete or that the repo you create will at all resemble the > >> "offical" git repo, assuming we do change over to git. > > > > I think a bunch of us have been using Git (git-svn to be precise) to > > interact with the canonical SVN repo for a while now. The gatekeeper > > repo would just simplify things for us–it would move the > > synchronization step into one point instead of spread out among the > > (several? many?) Git users. > > Do we really have a synchronization problem? What exactly do you mean > by that? I think the "synchronization" meant here is the regular import of SVN revisions into a git repository. Currently, a bunch of developers do this on their own systems (and especially the initial import is a lot of work), so there is some double work. I think the main advantage of having an "official" git mirror is that everyone uses the same base git repository: Which also allows for developers to directly pull commits from each other in an easy way. I've recently been submitting some bigger patch series consisting of multiple patches: If I could have added an url to my online git repository, the developer committing those patches wouldn't have had to bother with downloading each of the patches seperately and feeding them into git, but could have directly pulled from my repository. > *THIS* is where I disagree. After we get some experience with git and > after we'd figured out the proper incantations to completely migrate > from svn, then we should *not* work from the gatekeeper repo but instead > we should start with a fresh "Master" repo off SVN and make that the > "official" repo. Do you mean a completely new repository, without history, or just redo the entire import? If the latter, I guess I agree (though if we redo the import a few times during the experimentation until we are happy with the result, a re-import might not even be needed). > > feature but still: GitHub is pretty cool :-) > > It may be cool, but we don't control it. :-/ I think the main advantage of something like Github is that people (developers and non-developers alike) can easily publish their experimentations. This can of course happen with git-svn as well, but having a public git repository makes things easier for people. > > Compared to svk: can’t say. I don’t know svk. :-) > > See, you should look into svk! SVK provides many of the features you're > asking about. One of the things I totally like about git (and thus git-svn) is its history rewriting capabilities. You can just start working on a patch series, doing selective committing with git add -p, and edit patches later on using git rebase and --amend, etc. This is ideal for developing and polishing patches before they are submitted or committed. I know that there are other tools for this (I've used quilt in particular), but git just makes this so very painless and Just Work. I guess the summary is that I rather like git and that having an official git repository (either on top of an svn repository or as the canonical repository) would make it easier for people to get started on GnuCash using git (or to start using git altogether, which I can only encourage ;-). Gr. Matthijs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
