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

[Uwe Bonnes]

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> writes:


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

Can you tell about your experience? What is worse?

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

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

Well, probably I barked to early at that time.

" git log -p --follow nut/gorp/edit/edline.c" at least shows the changes.

And I was in the missbelief that "git svn fetch" also fetches the changes in
branches. I now noticed that this is not true. Probably if I fetch and
rebase devnut-tiva, "git log" will even have more info about the
merge. As long at the local git repo doesn't have 5894-r5896, it can't tell
about the commit messages doen with r5894-r5896.But probably will show the
commit messages, when I have fetched r5894-r5896 in the local git
repo.However with the present SF downtime, I can not check.

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 were no longer maintained since then and SVN lost one of its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

So did my nitpicking keep you from updating the 4.x branches? Sorry about
that!

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

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

Well, everybody working on SVN is now cut off:
- No patch history
- No way to check in local changes.
Somebody working with git-svn can still:
- check in patches to his local tree
- look at the patch history of file
- branch, etc.

That is some very important decentralization!

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

I think git-svn doesn't emulate SVN with Git. I only makes the SVN repo
accessible in the git way, without changing the SVN repo as such.

Of cource, I fork. But I only fork in my local repo, and I soon resync with
the central repo.

So again, please elaborate where this is "the worst of both world".

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------