[Geany-devel] Git switch

[Thomas Martitz]

Am 19.06.2010 18:22, schrieb Chow Loong Jin:
> On Saturday 19,June,2010 11:22 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
>    
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:59:11 +0800
>> Chow Loong Jin<hyperair at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:11:43 +0200
>>> Enrico Tröger<enrico.troeger at uvena.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:30:24 +0200, Jiří wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> This choice will also influence the workflow in which you will use
>>>>> git. If contributors cannot have their branches hosted easily,
>>>>> then the the Linus model (one pusher pulling from contributors)
>>>>> will be harder to realize.
>>>>>            
>>>> I doubt we want that.
>>>> Who should be "our Linus"?
>>>> I can't do that and I guess Nick also not. And I also don't see any
>>>> advantage for Geany with such a scenario.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather keep the existing way of committing: a couple of people
>>>> have write access to trunk (or then master). They commit their
>>>> changes and patches and whatever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Enrico
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Then let's not go the Linus route. We can always adopt a working model
>>> as follows, which I've attempted to translate from the svn workflow as
>>> best as I can:
>>>
>>> We host Geany (git) on sourceforge.net. Developers who have push
>>> access (i.e. the ones who currently have commit access to svn) can
>>> push new commits there.
>>>
>>> Contributors:-
>>> 1. Clone the git repository from sourceforge.net
>>> 2. Do their work locally, and produce commits of the fixes/new
>>> features they implement.
>>> 3. They then submit these back to you via:
>>>     * Mailing list: git format-patch can generate patches formatted
>>>       properly for this purpose.
>>>     * Remotely hosted branches: gitorious.org/github.com can be very
>>>       useful for these, no matter how much you hate them. It'd be worth
>>>       having a mirror of Geany on gitorious.org/github.com to allow for
>>>       users to perform remote-cloning and pushing of new commits, so
>>>       that you can either rebase or merge these back into the main tree
>>>       hosted at sourceforge.net.
>>>        
>> This is correct, but I don't see any advantage of using git/bzr,
>> mercural, bitkeeper or whatever in favor of subversion of doing this.
>>      
> Point #2 isn't really feasible with svn, for more than one patch at a time. And
> then these patches can get outdated and fail to apply, requiring the person who
> wrote the patch to keep maintaining it until the patch is committed.
>    


The main flaw of SVN IMO. It basically forces you to have multiple 
checkouts, each having the double size of the source code.


> Of course, git format-patch can be done with geany still using git-svn, but how
> many developers do you want to see using git-svn before switching from svn to
> git? I think most of us already do, in geany's case. Hence, this discussion.
>    


Yes, that's the point. Many of us mess with git-svn (an additional 
hurdle) while we could simply switch to git and make it easier for most 
people.

Best regards.