On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:33:03PM -0300, Ignacio Riquelme Morelle wrote: > On Wednesday 15 February 2012 18:04:51 Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Mark de Wever <[email protected]>: > > > Personally I see not too much advantage by Git, git-svn works good > > > enough for me. However IMO the uptime of GNA is getting lower over the > > > years (it might be selective memory as well). > > > > It probably isn't. I've noticed it as well. > > I haven't really had any persistent problems with gna.org's service for a > long > while myself, other than the recent, prolonged downtime we all know of, and > that can be mostly attributed to poor planning. Better staffed services with > fresh codebases occasionally have to deal with things like distributed denial > of service attacks or security breaches, so I'm not sure there's a real > difference for a project like Wesnoth where there isn't constant 24/7 > activity.
True we don't need to have 24/7 support, I just have the feeling the quality of GNA is getting lower and esr's post confirms that. > I have repeatedly expressed concerns for moving to Git on IRC, so I'll try to > summarize them here for those who have not (been able) paying attention: > > 1) With SVN, the bulk of the initial download on 'svn checkout' appears to be > the snapshot of HEAD that serves as the client's reference to resolve > differences against the BASE revision. The size of the uncompressed source > distribution tarball we offer through SF.net should be a good reference for > this size. (I'm deliberately ignoring metadata and the visible file > duplicates > in the checkout tree.) > > Using Git, users (i.e. developers, prospective contributors, early adopters > and players taking advantage of tags) will have to download the entire > history > the first time in one go (git clone doesn't currently have a mechanism to > resume interrupted operations). There is an option with cloning (--depth) to download only a part of the history. It says that pushing upstream is problematic so not an option for full developers, but good enough for a patch. > Taking my git-svn tree as a reference, that would be something around 1.7 > GiB. > I wouldn't have been able to download this much when I first joined, and I'm > not able to at the moment (nor for the foreseeable future) either. > > This means that, assuming the service we choose doesn't offer something like > that, we'd need to host periodically-updated (possibly monthly) repository > clones that could be downloaded in a more convenient fashion using a tool > like > wget. I think clone --depth=1 can do that as well. > 3) The learning curve and organization. At the beginning (and even > afterwards, > as new people join the project) it will be very chaotic unless someone steps > forward and provides users with links to documentation (since IME even code > developers fail to RTFM at times), and most importantly, style guidelines > covering commit style/format, usage of branches, real merges vs. rebasing, > and > so on. I agree with the learning curve issue as well. However it seems that for Windows TortoiseGIT should make things simple. Regarding the commit style/format; it's not that with SVN there is a good style guide and I've seen enough commits in Wesnoth where the commit message was useless. So I'd say don't blame the tool, but the user for that. I fear too much that the repo becomes a mess. -- Regards, Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
