Hoi,
When you look at the situation with the Toolserver where everybody has its
own toy source area you have a situation where internationalisation and the
upgrading of functionality to a production level is not happening. If GIT is
so great, then solve an existing pain which is the inability to collaborate
on toolserver tools.
GIT is cool, it is the flavour of the month. It is an improvement when it
proves itself in what is in my opinion a manifest dysfunctional source
management environment. When the Toolserver sources are all in a GIT
repository and its localisation becomes manageable, you have the proof of
the pudding demonstrating problem solving ability. When internationalisation
and localisation are part of the solution you are convincing that we can
move to GIT.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 March 2011 16:08, Trevor Parscal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your objections seem to be based on the assumption that you would need to
> have push access to all repositories, but I think that's the point of DCVS,
> you can just fork them, and then people can pull your changes in themselves
> (or using a tool). Pull requests could even be generated when things are out
> of sync.
>
> I think it's quite possible this could make i18n/L10n work easier, not more
> difficult.
>
> - Trevor
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
>
> > From what I understand, common thought is that phase3 and all individual
> > extensions, as well as directories in trunk/ aside from extensions and
> > phase3 will be their own repos. Possibly there will be meta collections
> > that allow cloning things in one go, but that does not allow committing
> to
> > multiple repos in one go without requiring scripting. This is a use case
> > that is used *a lot* by L10n committers and others. I think this is bad.
> >
> > I am raising my objections against GIT as a replacement VCS for
> > MediaWiki's svn.wikimedia.org and the way people are talking about
> > implementing it again from an i18n perspective, and also from a
> > community/product stability perspective.
> >
> > I raised this in the thread "Migrating to GIT (extensions)"[1,2] mid
> > February. My concerns have not been taken away. i18n/L10n maintenance
> will
> > be a lot harder and more distributed. In my opinion the MediaWiki
> > development community is not harmed by the continued use of Subversion.
> In
> > fact, the global maintenance - I define this as fixing backward
> > incompatibilities introduced in core in the 400+ extensions in
> Subversion,
> > as well as updating extensions to current coding standard - that many
> > active developers are involved in now, will likely decrease IMO, because
> > having to commit to multiple repos will make it more cumbersome to
> perform
> > these activities. Things that require extra work by a developer without
> > any obvious benefits out are just discontinued in my experience. As a
> > consequence, the number of unmaintained and crappy extensions will
> > increase, which is bad for the product image and in the end for the
> > community - not caring about that single extension repo is too easy, and
> > many [devs] not caring about hundreds [of extensions] is even worse.
> >
> > Please convince me that things will not be as hard as I describe above,
> or
> > will most definitely not turn out as I fear. I am open to improvements,
> > but moving to GIT without addressing these concerns for the sake of
> having
> > this great DVCS is not justified IMO.
> >
> > Siebrand
> >
> >
> > M: +31 6 50 69 1239
> > Skype: siebrand
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-February/thread.html#5
> > 1812
> >
> > [2]
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-February/051817.html
> >
> >
> > On 22-03-11 10:15 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:27, Yuvi Panda <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> But actually the reason I did this mirror was as a proof of concept
> >>>> for a (still incomplete) conversion to Git.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there still interest in that? I don't have a lot of time for it,
> >>>> but I could help with that if people want to go that way.
> >>>
> >>> If lack of people dedicated to this is why a migration isn't being
> >>> considered (I guess not), I volunteer myself.
> >>
> >> Lack of time and people is indeed a factor. The import we have now
> >> isn't a proper Git conversion.
> >>
> >> I still have some vague notes here detailing approximately what we
> >> need, some of these are out of date. The "Split up and convert"
> >> section is somewhat accurate though:
> >>
> >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git_conversion
> >>
> >> No SVN to Git tool does exactly what we need due to our messy
> >> history. I came to the conclusion that it was probably easiest to
> >> filter the SVN dump (to e.g. fix up branch paths) before feeding the
> >> history to one of these tools.
> >>
> >> Of course even if we come up with a perfect conversion it's pretty
> >> much useless if Wikimedia doesn't want to use it for its main
> >> repositories. So getting a yes/no on whether this is wanted by WM
> >> before you proceed with something would prevent you/others from
> >> wasting their time on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
