> From: Kevin Fenzi [mailto:ke...@scrye.com]
>
> I'd be willing to try and help out though... perhaps I could assist
> with bug triage? Many of the bugs I get on the fedora side are just
> user error or issues with filesystems, etc and can be closed out once
> people fix the underlying issue. Looks like there's 69 bugs in
> savannah. I don't know if I need any privs there, but would be happy to
> try and go close obvious ones and ask for info on others, etc...
That sounds extremely helpful. For me, time is of course, also the issue.
(And I probably shouldn't be writing this at work.) ;-) But I'm self
employed, so I'm not at risk of punishing myself. I'm just not spending my
time billing somebody right now, when I should be. But I like doing this, so
here I am. ;-) Beats doing facebook or tweeting at work. Fundamentally
the same thing. Writing on the internet.
If you wouldn't mind, doing exactly as you say - seeing what obvious low
hanging fruit exists, and trying to get more info about that, it would
definitely be time well spent.
Also, I don't know if you'll need permissions either. So simply getting the
answer to THAT question will already represent forward momentum. ;-) I now
have obtained nearly all the permissions on this project, so I think I should
be able to grant that.
> Another unrelated thing... currently source is in svn. Git is the new
> hotness, perhaps it would be worth seeing how hard it would be to
> migrate?
You're right. Until a couple weeks ago, it was under CVS. And I shyly with a
slight little gesture of embarassment, converted to svn intentionally instead
of git. From a technical standpoint, I do personally think git will be better
than svn for this project, but my motiviation for selecting svn was thus:
I mentioned I do a lot of IT. I've deployed many svn and git deployments for
various companies over the last several years. Most of the time, you can't
have a balanced conversation about it; Linus started it, and there exists
nowadays, a culture of git-over-svn elitism, which is sometimes accurate and
sometimes not. The real truth is, each is a tool (neither Linus nor the
Internet at large are always fair or well-balanced), each has different
characteristics, and each tool is better for some situations. In this case, as
an OSS software project, git is the *ideal* solution. But we don't have any
development effort taking place, and as I said, I've deployed and supported a
lot of svn and git. Even in software groups full of pro software developers, I
see this trend over and over: The learning curve for git is much longer. If
you can use git, you can definitely use svn (although you might poo-poo it).
Svn is way simpler to setup and understand. So the reason I chose svn for this
project is to not-inhibit uptake of new developers.
I figured, being forced to learn CVS would legitimately be an obstacle to
acquiring new developers. I figured svn will not be an obstacle. I figured
git is a double-edged sword. As you said, it's "the new hotness," (or "hot
mess?") ;-) but I don't believe running git will *attract* new developers.
("Hey, did you hear, rdiff-backup is being developed on git. Sounds like a
good reason to join them...") heheheh ;-) #join-rdiff-backup-on-git
There are still a bunch of people out there who know svn because of work and
haven't surmounted the obstacle of learning git... I chose svn to be
conservative and avoid creating any obstacles for new developers.
Anybody who's in love with git is probably already using git2svn for other
projects ...
_______________________________________________
rdiff-backup-users mailing list at rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users
Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
