On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 22:45 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote: > 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.
So far, I don't have such a document. What is clear, is that there can be some issues in keeping a git repository which tracks CVS accurately - mostly relating to how branches are handled by cvsps (the patchset constructing mechanism which git-cvsimport uses.) > 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. I don't have a burning desire for everyone to move to git. It is useful for me though, and I do desire a reliable, possibly "official" git repository which tracks CVS, or whatever RCS gEDA ends up using. Peter C. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
