On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2) cultural bias
Only the first one is marginally correct, IMO.
Santiago wrote:
1. You have to use subversion.
Sorry, I've missed the thread that led to this, so sorry if I'm
repeating others.
I understand that GiT can be used locally as a layer on top of SVN.
I believe this gives you most of the perceived benefits of GiT
locally without the need for a project itself to switch to GiT.
I am a bit lost here as well -- what does GiT add to the processes/
workflows common in the ASF ?
One of the great things about GiT is that you can can have lots of
parallel and non-linear merges (every developer their own branch; lots
of people merging the same patch into different sequences) -- and as
such I can see it being perfectly tuned for, say, Linux.
However in the ASF most groups work roughly along fairly linear lines;
with 'one' or just a 'few' points at which a patch is accepted - and
essentially few, or just one, merge point (or a single line of merge
points when backported). Rarely do we merge multiple 'HEAD's.
And I'd almost argue that SVN is a useful framework which helps us
stay on the paved roads - where a single head progresses with group
consensus and generally agreed merit.
Thanks,
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
