Hi, I'm not sure switching the whole repo to git is a nice idea. Last time i've checked this it was very painful to work with libs/ repo cloned with git -- simple `git status` used to work ages. Maybe this is because of plenty of binary files, not sure. And size of that local cloned repo was also incredible big -- several gigabutes, iirc.
Git for codebase works really nice when you've got plenty of branches -- no pain with all this re-branching and so. Simple `git rebase` and here we go. There's also advantage for releases -- tagging happens much nicer with git. It'll be also more useful for pre-realse periods while codebase is frozen -- developers could still commit features to the development branch, but they wouldn't go to master. About clients i could say that git on linux works nice, msysgit works fine for windows. There's also TortoiseGIT. I haven't used it much, but it worked also nice. But i have to admit, that some firends of mine had some occasional troubles with it. P.S. as one more disadvantage, we'll be unable to have that r<number> in splash screen. It could be short commit SHA, but not sure it'll be useful. Tom M wrote: > It was discussed a bit yesterday on irc as Jason was updating his > sculpt branch to head that it would haven been much less pain with GIT > potentially. > > Brecht and Ideasman and other core maintainers what are your views on > moving to git or mercury? > > Ultimately the decision will be up to Ton of course, but would be good > to get a straw poll on sentiment for it. > > LetterRip > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- With best regards, Sergey I. Sharybin _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
