I would personally be on the side arguing AGAINST any sort of migration to git as the primary repository. We have a mirror that already exists, I see no reason why that is insufficient.
Whether contributions are provided as a single patch versus multiple 'commits' is, in my opinion, a matter of personal preference and one is not inherently superior to the other. SVN is just as capable of supporting branches that keep track of changes via commits, but the times wherein I've used branches for development when I merge back to trunk I do a single combined commit with all the changes rolled into one, which ignores all of the previous development commits done to the branch. I have never found reason to want all the extraneous commits, their history is preserved in the tagged branch. Git also remains extremely cumbersome in the one point where one would think its developers would have gone out of their way to make the operation as seamless and unneeding of direct intervention as possible, the actual process of combining your changes with that of other people. The fact that it does not automatically track changes of files ALREADY part of the repository has never made sense to me, why wouldn't I want any local changes I've made be merged cleanly with whatever upstream changes are pulled down? Though I've always felt that was more a cop out to try to minimize the burden on git's remarkably crappy diff/merge support in the first place. How does it mess up changes that are in two completely separate places in the same file in this day and age is beyond me when SVN doesn't have this problem. Poor performance/usability on Windows is not just a matter of tooling. Due to the size that the git history can grow to, it literally can end up stalling out when doing operations. A place where I previously worked resorted to trimming history. Unless the git developers are willing to actually go into their internals and change how they do file I/O to use dedicated Windows functions (there are hard limits to the standard C file i/o functions on Windows) no amount of tooling around the edges is going to fix that problem. Combined with the constant extraneous merges generated because git 'insists' on merging instead of automatically attempting to rebase when someone else gets in a commit before you, we have a fundamental problem here. I've used git, fairly extensively at that. I've generally found it to be a much poorer user experience than SVN, especially in light of the fact that I don't care about a lot of its 'features.' In fact the only feature that it has that is a genuine feature and is not just a more convoluted way of doing the same thing with SVN is local branches. That can be useful, but that's achievable with the git mirror and doesn't require those of us who do not want to use git to have to suffer through its clunkiness. And when git due to its nature can result in a lot of situations where it's faster to just nuke your checkout and reclone instead of trying to untangle whatever snarl it got its local history into, I would argue it's not doing a very good job as a revision control system. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:55 AM, David Quintana (gigaherz) <gigah...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry about that. I guess I have read a lot of technical papers ;P > > On 25 February 2016 at 12:47, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy.mailli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Okay ignore me, we cleared it up in IRC. David means significant, I've >> just never heard ........ nevermind ...... >> >> If moving to git will increase the likelihood of patches from outside the >> team, then that in itself is a good enough reason to move IMO. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ged Murphy [mailto:gedmurphy.mailli...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 25 February 2016 11:26 >> To: 'ReactOS Development List' <ros-dev@reactos.org> >> Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Consideration for migrating from Subversion to Git >> >> > I think the real goal with moving to a platform such as github is >> > reducing the entry barriers for new contributors. As it has been >> > mentioned already, almost all projects who moved from SVN with "send >> > patches" contribution system, to Git/Hg with Pull Requests have got >> > non-negligible growth in contributions. >> >> I'm confused, maybe it's your use of a double negative (non-negligible), >> but that sounds contradictory? >> Are you saying that projects that have moved from SVN to git have had no >> growth or good growth in contributions? >> >> Ged. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> Ros-dev@reactos.org >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
