This idea is so crazy that it has no merit and is not even worth discussing <insert because>.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Adam Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I was actually going to bring this up the other day, and ask if there > was going to be a switch to git. I completely agree that mediawiki > development could benefit greatly from the way git handles branches. > > -Adam > > On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Brian wrote: > > > With git you wouldn't have to compromise the stability of > > MediaWiki's head > > revision. You could review patches while they are only committed to > > the > > patch-writers own local git repository. When you are ready to accept > > the > > patch into trunk you do. > > > > A major benefit of this model is that you could have the head > > revision be > > defined as the code that is running live on the sites. > > > > git makes it very easy to switch from svn and has lots of svn- > > compatibility > > features, including automatically importing your svn repositories, > > etc.. It > > has a lot of other benefits as well such as speed (owing in part to > > the > > history being on your machine) but the true benefit for MediaWiki is > > the > > distributed development model. There is no reason to sacrifice the > > sanctity > > of your head just because someone *thinks* their code is ready. > > > > /Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > MediaWiki-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l > _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
