[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Moving to github

[Harald Kipp]

Hi Ole,

On 20.07.2015 11:26, Ole Reinhardt wrote:
> due to the current problems on sourceforge, and the discussion about
> changing the repo to a GIT repo, I'd like to bring up the idea to move
> the project to github.

You are mixing things up.

As far as I remember, there had been an agreement among the majority of
active developers to move from SVN to Git.

As far as I remember, there never had been any consensus about switching
from SF to Github.

Anyway...

Several contributions to this list suggested to switch to Git, but keep
the SVN workflow. In the meantime my experience is, that this is the
worst of both world.

What I like with SVN is its simple revision structure and how it keeps
track about patches between branches. However, Uwe reported problems
with SVN merging, when using Git with SVN. See

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.ethernut/14643

The solution he suggested makes "svn mergeinfo" completely useless and
cherry picking and tracking of trunk patches for older branches too time
consuming. As a result, the 4.x branches were no longer maintained since
then and SVN lost one of its essential features.

The thing I like most with Git is its decentralized workflow.

Several posts to this list suggested the centralized workflow, but IMHO
this would limit Git's most prominent feature, decentralization.

So, if you want to lose essential features of SVN and Git, then continue
to emulate SVN with Git. If you want get the full potential of Git, then
I'd strongly recommend to use the forking workflow. Once again I'd like
to point you to

https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/

Ole, what was your question really?

If it was: "Should we switch to Git?" then my answer will be "Yes".

If it was: "Should we move to Github?" then I can't give any answer,
because the question makes no sense too me. Decentralization implies,
that there is no central code base, doesn't it?

Regards,

Harald