[En-Nut-Discussion] Switching to GIT

[Harald Kipp]

Hi Ole,

what else can I add? I fully agree.

...wait, just one minor thing...

Warning! Now I'm presenting a lot of justifications, not really worth to
read. :-)

On 26.09.2013 14:23, Ole Reinhardt wrote:

> But finally I ask myself, why we have not yet changed to git earlier.
> 
> For me the question to keep SVN does not exists, as I'm always a friend
> of adapting to modern technologies.

That's how I know you. :-) I'm different, though. Without need, I
usually refuse to follow every new hype. In any case I want to make
sure, that everyone can take part without being forced to change his
daily operating system. I think it's a bad habit, that the GNU
foundation wants to avoid exactly this and tries to ignore users of
non-free OSes whenever possible, or at least make them feel bad. That's
not the spirit of the Ethernut project. Specifically I remember your
demand to introduce file system links for header files to make directory
structures look nicer in your editor. OK for me, as long as it is
confirmed, that this will not eliminate our Windows based developers. If
Git doesn't work reliable on non-Linux systems, we have to keep an
alternative for users of non-Linux systems.

Today this is no obstacle any more. I can confirm from my own
experience, that Git made its way to true multi-platform support.

When the first discussion appears on this list some months ago, I was
asking for any good reasons to justify the extra effort. While this new
thread presented several good arguments, the earlier thread just claims
"because it's modern" (see above) and "everybody switches" (definitely
wrong) and "because it's faster", which was no real problem, because the
SF web interface was a good and responsive alternative for those
functions, that were slow on the CLI. That old thread died without any
resulting action, because no new arguments appeared.

Now there is need for selfish me, because I don't wont to click through
lists like
http://sourceforge.net/p/ethernut/code/4163/
or use the awfully slow SVN command line. So I started the discussion again.

That's why.

Regards,

Harald