+∞** This is not going to be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is. I've been using git for personal projects for a while, and would agree that the issues that have come about are more to do with learning than regret.
- Trevor On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > For a long time, we've been talking about migrating from Subversion to > Git. It's time to start getting more serious about it. > > First: the need to do this. There is pretty broad acceptance that we > should move to a distributed version control system (DVCS). Our > current Subversion-based version control system has served us well, > but we're in need of a more suitable version control system for our > development effort. Our community is very distributed, with many > parallel efforts and needs to integrate many different feature > efforts. While we've developed lots of coping mechanisms, we sure > could use a system that's well suited to more fluid branching and > merging. > > There has been resistance to this in the past, and there still may be > some resistance. However, I think we've worn everyone down. :) > > Next: the selection of Git over other DVCSs. Over the past couple of > years, other systems have been mentioned (Bzr, Hg), but there hasn't > been any evidence (at least on this mailing list) for anything other > than mild support for the alternatives. As you might have seen, our > Ops folks have already moved to Git[1], and while they're right in the > middle of the tough part of the learning curve, they seem to be > adjusting just fine. The complaints seem to be of the "I really need > to get used to that" variety rather than the "why are we doing this > again?" variety. So, given the momentum that Git has, the ample > discussion we've had on the subject, and the fact that Ops is already > planning to support Git, this seems to be a settled question. > > So now, the questions shift from "if?" to "when?" and "how?". > > When? After some amount of arm twisting by Erik and Brion (*hugz*), > I've agreed to float a plan that has us making the migration by the > end of the year. This is completely contingent on our ability to get > 1.19 deployed in a rapid fashion (which, if we can get through the > code review queue at our current rate, could be done in November). > Until we have a more fleshed out plan, though, "end of the year" > purely a guess, and subject to change (partly based on any ensuing > conversation after this mail). However, assuming we can clear the > technical hurdles, there's not any procedural issues I can see getting > in the way of a rapid transition. > > How? Lots of unsorted pieces. There are still decisions we need to make: > * Code review tool: barring unforeseen complications, we're planning > to use Gerrit. We need to make sure it'll be a suitable replacement > for our existing tool > * How do we break up the repository? One big repo? Extensions each > get their own? We need to sort all of that out. > > A draft plan is available here: > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git_conversion > > Rob > > [1] ...or so I've read on Slashdot, so it must be true: > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/09/21/0531246/wikimedia-foundation-releases-their-server-config > > _______________________________________________ > 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
