On 25/08/11 10:49, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Jan de Groot<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 00:15 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial operations is a huge
PITA.
IMHO the only nice features I like from git that aren't in SVN are
bisect and the possibility to work on a local copy without being online.
That, in addition to easy branching/merging, rebasing and reverting.
This is all possible with SVN of course, but it becomes much more
cumbersome.
The first part is something we don't use for packaging,
We don't use it because we can't. I think we should though, especially
for the non-trivial packages (that contain lots of patches or other
tweaks). In order for bisection to be useful, we'd need to be able to
do smaller patches, and that's not really practical without local
commits.
You would seriously need to bisect while packaging? If you are applying
patches to packages, you should know exactly what they are doing, or at
least be able to have a damn good idea which patch is causing the issue
you are seeing. I say this being the maintainer of one of the most
patched packages in our repos (glibc, I think there are only a couple of
more patched packages...).
I also see no real need for branching/merging/rebasing while packaging
either. Doing stuff on trunk has worked fine for me and as far as I can
tell is exactly what trunk is for.
But in the end, if someone comes up with a solution using git that does
not alter my workflow much (archco/svn update; make changes;
"commitpkg"; done...), I will accept it for the primary reason that I
find SVN to be slow, or at least how we use it in devtools (especially
after recent changes).
Allan
