On Tuesday 24 January 2012 15:59:18 Emmanuel Deloget wrote: > Le 01/24/2012 02:06 PM, Jonathan McCrohan a écrit : > > On 24/01/12 08:22, Dave Taht wrote: > >> My principal critique of this workflow is that I tend to view svn as > >> part of the problem to a large extent. If I do a patch in my own (git) > >> tree to test with, I invariably have to rebase that tree when it comes > >> down from svn. > >> > >> as I am frequently offline, not being able to do a 'svn log' is the > >> second deal-killer for me, for svn usage. > > > > I also see svn as part of the problem. I think a move towards the > > linux-kernel development model would be a great benefit. > > > > Using git would allow users to make many small fixes in their own tree > > and send single a pull request for fixes to x,y and z to a member of the > > patch review team for ACK or NAK who can then commit to master. > > Hopefully this will result in fewer stray patches. > > > > The original user will then show up in git blame and will make tracing > > errors far easier. Currently, unless you have commit rights, everything > > comes from one of the few core developers and you have to manually look > > up the changeset to figure out who is responsible for it. > > I would also give my vote to git, as this solution proved to be far > more scalable than svn. Since importing an svn tree to git is quite easy, > and since trac proposed a git connector, such a move should be nearly > painless (unless you have the full openwrt svn as an svn:external in > your own tree).
Let's just keep focused on the proposal here and not the use of a different tool for the main repository. SVN is scalable as well, what is not is giving access to the main repository right now. -- Florian _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
