Stipe Tolj <st 'at' tolj.org> writes: thanks for your answer. there's only a couple of things I think I need to answer to:
> We could postulate a master svn and a shared git repo on kannel.org I > guess simultaneously, right? Not quite sure if it would be intelligent > to let the user "decide" which VC to use. I have no experience in svn+git so I really cannot tell much. But I suspect it doesn't make sense, actually; as far as I can tell, "manual" (cron-based for example) pulling from svn to git would be needed (not lovely), and there would be no benefit (I don't think there is less features if you clone locally to git from a central svn repo). [...] > now, not looking for pure import compatibility, more into branching > and merge applying compatibility. Which means, can we develop within > git locally for the developers, and "clone" each operation within the > central svn master? Yes, that's how I understood git-svn actually work; but as there is not a 1-to-1 mapping in available operations on both sides, there will probably be corner cases when that is not possible. Practically, the git-svn documentation says that history should be kept as linear as possible in the local git repo (e.g. avoid branching and merging), because svn lacks merge tracking ability. [...] > now the secret: I did work with git a some days :p ... we haven't yet > moved to svn. Alex and I had been talking about it. Now, we have > another option with git. > > Thanks a lot for your advocation to git. I and the group appreciate it > highly. It has spotted light on git. I guess we should see what the > others say about it and then get a vote poll on the decision. Makes sense. -- Guillaume Cottenceau, MNC Mobile News Channel SA, an Alcatel-Lucent Company Av. de la Gare 10, 1003 Lausanne, Switzerland - direct +41 21 317 50 36
