On 04/18/2011 07:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 17:33, Marius Dumitru Florea > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On 04/08/2011 04:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: >>> For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn for the 3.0 branch. >>> The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I >>> don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch. >>> >>> It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard. >>> >>> WDYT ? >> >> I don't see what's the problem with using git for 3.0 branch. I thought >> git was better at branching and merging than svn. I tried a few merges >> and they all worked fine and anyway it's easier to resolve a merge >> conflict than to manually merge everything. >> >> I'm -1 for using *only* svn for 3.0 branch. I'm fine with being able to >> use both. Note that we already have the 3.0 and 2.7 branches on git and >> I already did a few commits on both of them. > > My proposal has nothing to do with merging/branching, it's simply that > in trunk the whole platform is one repository which is not true for > 3.0 so you only have core and none of application/plugins/skins and > even web for 3.0 since theses would need to be in their own repository > like we had in github before the refactoring
I don't think this is a problem. Most tools/applications don't need to be re-released, and even on SVN this would be hard, since we'd have to create a branch from a released tag, and we don't do that very often. The same principle can be applied on git, and we actually pulled colibri-1.27 into the xwiki-2.7 branch. In consequence, I'm changing my vote to use only git from now on, even for 2.7 and 3.0 bugfix releases. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
