On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:55 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:50 +1300, Daniel Swarbrick wrote: > > David, you seem very vocal on this issue. Have you asked what other > > people on this project think of svn? Maybe it's more convenient for > > them. > > I thought that's what I _was_ doing? :)
I personally feel that Subversion's lack of merge/branch tracking makes things difficult for projects with a number of developers. svnmerge attempts to work around that but it's very ugly hack as far as I'm concerned. I know David is very much in favor of using Git. I don't have a problem with that (although I haven't been an active developer for a while, I'd eventually like to get back to it). I don't have enough experience with Git, Mercurial, or any of the other distributed version control systems to have a strong feeling for any of them. > > A change to git would also mean having to replace Trac. I haven't used > > git before, but I was under the impression that git is better suited to > > very large projects (ie, the Linux kernel). > > I believe trac works with git. We use both trac and git for OLPC > development at dev.laptop.org. There are at least a couple of plugins for Trac & Git: http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/TracGitPlugin http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/GitPlugin I've not worked extensively with either of them, but they don't appear to work as well as the regular SVN support from Trac. It appears that OLPC isn't using a Trac plugin, but is using a customized version of gitweb and only uses Trac for tickets. Jeff
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Openpbx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
