On 30.09.2013 09:50, Ike Devolder wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:55:21PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan <connor.be...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of >>>> reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for >>>> repositories for the official packages? >>> One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive checkout and >>> only have working copies of the packages you maintain. AFAIK, git does >>> not (want to) support this. >>>> Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation >>>> needs to be updated and the workflow needs to be tested, but are there >>>> objections to starting the transition process? >> If we were to use git, we should have one git repository per package, >> and also provide one repository which includes all the packages as >> submodules. This will allow both partial and full checkouts, just like >> with svn. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tom > If packages-repositories would be hosted on a service like github, > gitorious, .... it would be a very nice addition. That would open up a > lot of opportunity for non-dev/non-tu users to create pull requests in > an easy way, leading to possible more input/help from the broad > community. In that case i'm very much in favour of this switch. > > If we only switch to git to switch to git because it is more popular and > people are more used to it, I don't see the advantage. For what we are > using it, svn is in my oppinion easier to use than git. >
That is an excellent idea that I hadn't even considered yet.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature