Hi, On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 13:14 +0100, Marcus Lindblom wrote: > On 2010-01-14 03:06, Gerrit Voß wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:38 +0100, Marcus Lindblom wrote: > > >> However, I'd love to see github.com being used instead of SVN, as it's > >> much easier to maintain own changes, submit fixes for bugs and for > >> core-devs to pull& integrate patches. > > > > I already mirror the current svn master on github because of the > > ongoing website problems. Currently I do that manually but I could > > automate it in the future (e.g. cron scripted once an hour or so). > > A post-commit-hook on the svn server would make most sense, no?
hmm, maybe but the cron job I can control the svn server I can't ;) > > I'm still a little hesitant to move everything to git as you can > > do to many weird things to a tree. For now a linear system like > > svn seems safer. For maintaining own changes it should actually > > make no difference (git fetch vs. git-svn fetch). > > This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in practise, but it probabty > takes some time for a community to learn a new tool and adapt around it. hmm, git in general or git-svn ? > As long as there is an offical repo, and backups/clones of that, any > wierd history things wont happen. And the ones that have push-rights to > that repo don't do anything stupid there. (They have their own personal > clones that can change more, but the offical one should never forcibly > pushed to.) in theory yes ;) Just that the possibility is there makes me a little nervous. I actually have to try how much one can recover once somebody trashes the tree. > > The pulling and integrating patches part I can see. Could we start > > with a double system where I provide and update a github mirror which > > people can clone and we (I) can pull& integrate patches from. > > This sounds like a good initial plan. The svn-backend is then just an > implementation detail (from the views of git-users). yes. > > As you can merge multiple git source trees into one from my > > side this should not be a problem. I push both the svn and > > git repositories from the same master git tree on my system. > > Yup. All we need is a 'svn-trunk' branch in git that follows SVN trunk > (duh :), then everyone can keep their non-merged contributions rebased > on top of that. yes, I saw you found the git tree ;) > The only risk is that contributors' git-repos might become a bit messy > if the svn-merge-rebase creates new commits, but it should be easy > enough to manage. it should not, I never used merge/rebase between git and svn. All I do is git-svn fetch; git pull . remotes/git-svn. I only see interesting things happening if we start making the git tree not just a dependent clone of the svn but starting to push to it directly ;) And than only if we get commits simultaneously to both repositories. kind regards gerrit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies. http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list Opensg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
