Hi Peter, I'm still experimenting with both schematics and code under git and gitk, and I still haven't decided yet, that is, in reverting to cvs.
One of the pros of git I see sofar is in putting together a tarball as in: git-archive --format=tar --prefix=some/prefix/ HEAD | gzip > ball.tar.gz This is much more easier than creating a tarball from a cvs repository. As for finding caveats, do you have a shortlist of caveats and/or pitfalls for git ? Call it a "cvs versus git" evaluation for gaf if you will. As this may help if you want to have Ales and the other developers make a decision in moving gaf under git revision control in the nearby future. Just my EUR 0.02 ;-) Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Peter TB Brett Verzonden: donderdag 15 maart 2007 16:07 Aan: gEDA developer mailing list Onderwerp: Re: gEDA-dev: Souce Contreol of big architectural projects inGoogleSoC.... On Monday 12 March 2007 12:52:23 Timmerman, Bert wrote: > I allready miss the $Id$ tag with the version, status and commit date > in it, which is a quick and visible pointer to me, as to see something > has changed in a schematic. Whereas I absolutely hate CVS keyword substitution and think it's evil. If you want to find out if something's changed in a git repository, look at the log -- one of the advantages of git is that there's no network communication needed to view the full log. But each to his own. Also, git is designed for managing source code, rather than separate documents. CVS/RCS is better for that, or Subversion. Git's advantages only really come into play when working with > So it's very likely that I go back to cvs after this evaluation. For revision control of schematics, that seems sensible. > A question that come to mind is: Is there a decent way (as in not > cumbersome) to revert from git to cvs and not losing the intermediate > commits made in git ? man git-cvsexportcommit -- you may well consider this cumbersome. Git supports a lot of stuff that CVS doesn't. > IMO that is what's needed when stable code written by one or more > students is to be merged into the geda/gaf or pcb cvs repository. > > It's very likely that someone has to do a test to find the caveats, if > any exist. As you may have noticed, that's what Peter C and myself have been doing for the last few months. I myself use stgit (Stacked GIT) to generate patchsets to send to the list, for manual application to the main tree. This isn't ideal except for final merge of a branch maintained in git. I'd very much like to see the gaf main revision control system move to git -- but I think that for version control of schematics, git is no better than any other system. HTH, Peter -- Fisher Society committee http://tinyurl.com/o39w2 CUSBC novices, match and league secretary http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9 CU Spaceflight http://tinyurl.com/ognu2 v3sw6YChw7$ln3pr6$ck3ma8u7+Lw3+2m0l7Ci6e4+8t4Gb8en6g6Pa2Xs5Mr4p4 hackerkey.com peter-b.co.uk _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
