Le 01/24/2012 02:06 PM, Jonathan McCrohan a écrit :
On 24/01/12 08:22, Dave Taht wrote:
My principal critique of this workflow is that I tend to view svn as part
of the problem to a large extent. If I do a patch in my own (git) tree
to test with, I invariably have to rebase that tree when it comes down
from svn.
as I am frequently offline, not being able to do a 'svn log' is the
second deal-killer for me, for svn usage.
I also see svn as part of the problem. I think a move towards the
linux-kernel development model would be a great benefit.
Using git would allow users to make many small fixes in their own tree
and send single a pull request for fixes to x,y and z to a member of the
patch review team for ACK or NAK who can then commit to master.
Hopefully this will result in fewer stray patches.
The original user will then show up in git blame and will make tracing
errors far easier. Currently, unless you have commit rights, everything
comes from one of the few core developers and you have to manually look
up the changeset to figure out who is responsible for it.
I would also give my vote to git, as this solution proved to be far
more scalable than svn. Since importing an svn tree to git is quite easy,
and since trac proposed a git connector, such a move should be nearly
painless (unless you have the full openwrt svn as an svn:external in
your own tree).
Jon
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
