On Mar 5, 11:45 pm, "Adam Wiggins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should mention that subversion support (via the svn-git bridge) may
> be a feature we consider in the near future. We're longtime
> subversion users, so we certainly see the benefit in supporting it.
Yes, ultimately, something like 'import from external svn' feature was
what I wanted at first... although, even if if there was such a
feature, I would've wanted to have cruisecontrol in between so that
both tests and deployment are automatic. It would certainly be nice
if you guys could host CC (or something similar to that) as well :)
However, CC isn't the best tool for deployment control anyway, so
perhaps the deployment issue can be addressed separately. "automatic
deployment" (whether using my tool or editing and change reflected
right away within heroku) is nice during dev phase, but I'd imagine
once the app is "published", I'd want some control over exactly which
version goes out to the wild. Maybe all I'd need to do is have two
different projects - one for "dev" and the other for "production" -
and copy "dev" to "production" when I feel like deploying, etc.
> However, some of the best features we have coming up in the near
> future will only work with decentralized revision control, so we're
> sort of on the fence about whether to introduce subversion support,
> only to later introduce features that won't be useable with it.
I wonder what these features will be.. exciting! :)
> I should also mention that svn and git can be used over the top of one
> another. You can still commit to your main repo, and then commit to a
> local git repo for purposes of pushing out to Heroku. They don't
> conflict at all, the only problem would be the bother of remembering
> to do the double commit.
I agree it would be a cleaner to do it that way. I thought it would
be more difficult to compare the two trees, though(would have to use
svn / git status commands perhaps,) so I took the easy way out...
On Mar 6, 4:14 am, Thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's meant by "decentralized" revision control? Git doesn't use a
> single server like subversion does?
>
> -Thufir
I'm new to git as well so I may be talking out of my posterior here,
but I think with git, any 'working copy' can be a repository too... so
git 'clone' really does just clone, as opposed to 'checking out' from
a central repository. git can be used more like P2P as well as client-
server when needed - hence "decentralized," I think.
I found it... "git for CVS users" says:
"Git differs from CVS in that every working tree contains a repository
with a full copy of the project history, and no repository is
inherently more important than any other. However, you can emulate the
CVS model by designating a single shared repository which people can
synchronize with; this document explains how to do that."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Heroku" group.
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/heroku?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
