On 1 June 2016 at 20:31, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote: > Our main repo is in SVN; I would say we don't know what most people > are using (aside from "svn for write access because it's the only > option").
If the LLVM Meetings are any indication, and they are at least related to the most active developers, everyone I've asked (and I did ask a lot over the last 2 years) was using Git for development. Most people were using Git-SVN for commits, with some few still using a separate SVN repository. I'm not really too worried about personal preferences. The infrastructure cost alone is more important than any of our preferences. That is why I have been using SVN all these years, even though I hate it more than I once hated CVS. The admin cost is high, and we're not sysadmins, so GitHub would provide an *immense* value for the price of $0. I can't argue we that. But there are also downstream infrastructure issues that need to be taken into account. As James said, knowing Git well is almost a required skill nowadays, and everything is done thinking about Git these days, so the likelihood that you'll find a replacement for your company's infrastructure to work with Git is higher than a new process will work well with SVN. In the long term, SVN will be just like CVS was 10 years ago or RCS 20. It'll be impossible to work with them, and companies depending on that infrastructure will be in *serious* trouble. > Fair points, but with the caveat that people using git today have a > workable solution (as I understand it, and I could be totally wrong) > using the git mirrors. That's not a reason to not transition from svn > to git, however. Indeed. It's all about the overall costs for the whole community. Personal preferences will be mostly diluted, with strong technical arguments being the driving forces. > This is implying that we will move, which I think should still be left > as a vague question mark until we have more answers. Based on that, I > think it's premature to encourage anyone to switch to git. I will (only slightly and personally) disagree, based on James' point of how important Git is today. Ever since I discovered Git I have always encouraged people to use it, regardless, and I'll keep encouraging. :) But that's irrelevant to the discussion. > but I am worried when emails make it > sound like switching to git-only is a foregone conclusion, which is a > bit of a strange way to start a discussion about whether the community > wants to switch. I think that's just the result of people enthusiastic with the opportunity to move to a better working environment. Not everyone is, but those that are, are showing. This is another indication that there are more Git users than SVN users, but not an argument to force the move. The only arguments we should accept are technical ones. cheers, --renato _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
