Hi Thomas, An interesting thread, thanks for starting it. Since you anticipated my knee-jerk reaction (though I wouldn't have flamed you), I was inspired to go find out a bit more about it.
The focus on merging is quite interesting. Not that this is a concern for ASF, but for me I think other aspects of git might cause concern for my commercial clients. 1: Many companies have taken the time to move from CVS to SVN, which was an improvement. And I think most are happy with it. It fixed most of the file locking issues of it's predecessor, though I do hear a fair amount of branch and merge conversations. So I think they think "problem solved", but maybe git could make even more things run smoothly. 2: Actually I think the "distributed" aspect of git might actually make companies nervous. I'm not saying this is justified, I'm talking perception here. This is a true story: A large client sternly reminded everybody about the absolute ban on peer-to-peer and distributed file sharing, and conveying that this could qualify as a first time termination offense. I never got full details, but there had been an incident of an employee intentionally covering their tracks, and for clearly for illegal activities. But I politely pointed out that Bit Torrent, for example, is often used for legitimate like Linux distributions. Given the recent happenings my manager suggested that the company simply didn't want to discuss it. So I dropped it. There's also some mention in the git wiki about where files live and that perhaps companies that are used to backing up centralized repositories might find the git model different (my words) If the merge-friendly nature of git were seen as valuable enough, I'm sure some companies would revisit their policies. -- Mark Bennett / New Idea Engineering, Inc. / [email protected] Direct: 408-733-0387 / Main: 866-IDEA-ENG / Cell: 408-829-6513 On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Thomas Koch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > at least since august 2009 nobody has dared to ask this question, so let's > start a flamewar: > Don't you think, it's time for lucene and solr to switch to GIT? > > And now seriously: > I did the last packaging of SOLR 1.4 for Debian and I intend to continue > doing > so. Since I'm doing the packaging in GIT, I'm asking myself, whether I > should > base the packaging GIT repository on the SOLR repo found at git.apache.org > ? > However if the one from git.a.o is not stable and may crash at any given > time, > this would not be a good idea. > And the best thing for those packagers like me would be of course, if the > GIT > repo would be the official one. > > And I wonder, if there are really people using SVN and downloading douzens > of > patch files from jira? Isn't it, that everybody already uses git-svn? > > Best regards, > > Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
