What I like Git for mostly is its simple offline working, but that can
still be done locally just with `git init && git commit -a` inside an
SVN working copy. Providing a .gitignore file might be a nice convenience.
What about using git-svn on user side ?
(I didn't try it myself yet).
Petr
-
I possibly agree now with Robert we are better off not using Git for the
packaging repos, at least for now. Mostly it works okay, until
something throws the workflow off completely, then the way to fix it is
really not intuitive for most people.
What I like Git for mostly is its simple offline wo
2013/5/27 Guillem Jover
> Agreed, didn't want to post a summary yet, because I'm not confortable
> doing the switch until Robert and Aurelien have posted their opinions,
> given their amount of commits.
>
Not that I'm actively using it now... my last commit was 10 months ago.
But if you want my
Hi,
On 27/05/13 08:06, Petr Salinger wrote:
> - one common repository x repository per package
> repository per package
I just read that Gitweb on anonscm.d.o can now show a filtered index of
packages 'per project'. So with a repository per package, it is
possible to see a list of them e.g.:
Hi!
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 09:06:33 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories
>
> Outcome of discussion seems be:
>
> - use svn or git
> switch to git
>
> - packaging-only or full content
> packaging-only
>
> - o
On Sun, 19 May 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories
Outcome of discussion seems be:
- use svn or git
switch to git
- packaging-only or full content
packaging-only
- one common repository x repository per package
repository per package
Petr
--
To U
On 20/05/13 17:54, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 20/05/13 07:56, Petr Salinger wrote:
>> - one common repository x repository per package
>> I slightly prefer one common.
> And I think the commit log of Git works globally, [...]
Also I think it would be near impossible to do merges, if multipl
Hi Petr,
On 20/05/13 07:56, Petr Salinger wrote:
> - one common repository x repository per package
> I slightly prefer one common.
What might be the advantage of this?
And could submodules possibly provide the same convenience? (A
repository that points to all the others).
A downside to a
On 20.05.2013 08:56, Petr Salinger wrote:
> - packaging-only or full content
> I strongly prefer packaging-only.
>
> - one common repository x repository per package
> I slightly prefer one common.
Note that git unlike svn does not really like check-outs of paths only
within a repository. Hen
I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn
to git repositories
My position:
- use svn or git
It does not matter for me.
- packaging-only or full content
I strongly prefer packaging-only.
- one common repository x repository per package
I slightly prefer one
Hi Guillem!
This sounds like a good idea. Git would seem easier to work with, for
exactly the things you mentioned.
I still think it is best to fetch upstream source using Subversion; but
certainly we are free to choose something else for the packaging.
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@p
Hi!
Guillem Jover writes:
> I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn
> to git repositories, because svn is increasingly painful compared to git,
> when it comes to at least partial commits, tagging (we don't seem to
> be tagging much), branching and merging, offline
Hi Guillem,
(swapping some sentences)
> What do people think?
Yes! Please do! I made the same proposal a while back and I'm looking
forward to see that happen.
> I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories, although I'd like to
> keep just the current packaging-only structure, to the point I'
Hi!
I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn
to git repositories, because svn is increasingly painful compared to git,
when it comes to at least partial commits, tagging (we don't seem to
be tagging much), branching and merging, offline hacking, etc...
I'd even volu
14 matches
Mail list logo