Re: Git?

[Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Le 23/04/15 09:26, Radovan Semancik a écrit :
> On 04/22/2015 12:28 PM, Steve Moyer wrote:
>> I think we've spent enough time rehashing the past ... let me just say
>> that I think things would have gone a lot differently if there'd been an
>> easy way to provide a repository branch for us to check code into.  On
>> the other hand, I can certainly understand why you don't want to change
>> your infrastructure every time someone pops into the IRC channel - SVN
>> doesn't make it so easy to limit permissions and you probably see a
>> hundred people a month come by then disappear (like I seemed to do).
>
> This was exactly my problem when I wanted to contribute to the API.
> The entry barrier is quite high. I'm not talking about the complexity
> of the code or the required programming skill. Just think what someone
> that wants to contribute needs to do:
> 1) Check out the code.
> 2) Work ... and suffer
> ... No place to commit changes, no way how to roll back, no way how to
> plug the changes into CI, ...
> 3) Create a patch
> 4) Submit patch
> 5) Wait
> 6) Checkout the source code with the patch, resolve conflicts or check
> everything out again and set it up again
> 7) repeat ... or quit because this is just too much overhead
>
> I have used Subversion for almost a decade. But the day that we've
> switched the projects to git was one of the happiest days in my
> professional life. I still feel quite reluctant to get back to
> subversion to be able to contribute ...
>
> Haven't you thought about switching the projects to git? This will
> make contributions much easier.
>
Indeed, we did. All the new prohects (Kerby, fortress) are now using git.

We already discussed about switching to git for the other projects, a
few months ago. Beside the clear benefuts you have mentioned, there is
also the fact that I'm fedup of switching from svn to git, and back.

So, yes, we *will* switch to git, most certainly after we have reached a RC.