* Edgar Friendly <thelema314 at gmail.com> [2008-07-04 12:46:01]: > Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > The original debate was about "why should we switch to git": I have just > > explained why I don't receive the "makes branching/forking easier" as an > > important point for now. > > > And I'd like to chime in that easier branching/forking doesn't mean only > more incompatible clients, it also means a different type of interaction > with your SCM, where checking in happens nearly as often as saving your > work. This may have positive effects on development because the more > history is kept in the SCM, the easier it is to revert to a previous > version on failure, or pull from somewhere else in the tree of code if > you realize you didn't want to get rid of something. >
Two points here: 1) if we ever use a DSCM it *will* be in a centralized manner: there will be a public tree devs will have to push to; I do not think that the full history of each dev's individual "working-copy" will be pushed there. 2) How the SCM is used depends on people more than the tools; see below > A single line of development results in less of this because people > generally commit to the SCM only top-quality, fully working and tested > code, Do you read the commits diffs? That's for sure, we only commit top-quality, fully working and tested code... and that's why we don't need a bug-tracker and we have released freenet 1.0 since years now ;) > so more of the work happens outside the SCM, losing the above > benefits to some extent. > As said previously it depends more on people than on the tools you use; Say we switch to git tomorrow... someone is willing to work on a new feature or a bugfix... he will create a branch locally... work on it... probably do some stupid mistakes (as we all do)... and when he has something working he will push that back to the official trunk. At that moment he will be given the choice in between "merging incrementally" and "merging fully". The choice is still up to him and I bet that people not committing often right now won't merge incrementally their work either. Experience has shown that long-standing coders are *not* numerous; if we ever have to look for the history of the merge, it will be present only on the dev's working copy who is likely to have disappeared since a while. NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080705/becf1df1/attachment.pgp>