Absent a strong identification of specific problems relating to our use of SVN, I find this line of inquiry to be a bit strange. It'd be like saying, with a straight face, "Let's consider rewriting Habari in Ruby." Sure, it could be done, but we have a substantial investment in what we have in place now, so what's the specific thing we're hoping to improve by changing?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Owen Winkler <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, weird for me to be starting this fight but... > > After reading the ongoing battle over on wp-hackers, I'm curious what the > pain would be to switch entirely over to Git for core and extras SCM. > > The one requirement I have is that all the code lives centrally (heh, the > irony of "distributed" SCM) on the hp.o server, not in some third-party > hosted service. > > So, could the people who are most enamored with the idea of using Git please > explain to the rest of us crotchety old svn users what the actual > differences would be for using git for SCM? > > I'm not talking about the "oh, your merges will be so much easier" crap, I'm > talking about actual potential pain points for the switch. For example: No > solid/stable Tortoise-like client for Windows. Need to reconfigure our > server-side stuff (like Trac) to handle it. > > It will be useful to compare those things to what people stuck in svn will > actually care about in order to make a decision about what to do and how to > mitigate the damage. > > Owen > > > -- > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev > -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev
