On 12/09/2011 00:21, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09:15AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: >> Maybe, moving to git instead of svn ? Git is a bitch to become >> comfortable with [ I dropped out of clfs when they moved to it ] but >> it does make branching easy. Perhaps that isn't an issue in LFS, in >> which case feel free to ignore this suggestion. >> > > On reflection, git might need the presence of the "dictator for > life" (i.e. someone responsible for merging) to get commits from a > branch to master, which would be a very retrograde step.<sigh/>
I'm not sure it's too bad. It only seems to be myself and Bruce that commit to 'master' these days anyway :) I do like the idea of allowing anyone to just 'git clone' the source and be able to generate patch sets for whatever they want to work on that can just be applied to master. This is, IMO, much nicer for history than a 'quilt' series (which is what I use when tackling multiple tickets with a single build/commit cycle) or than a 'one big patch' that may be submitted via email or via Trac. That said, I tried and failed miserably to get my head around the expected workflow for git, or to get git to play nicely with my quilt-oriented workflow style. I'll post to lfs-chat about that though, as it's OT for this discussion. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
