felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Git dies of lack of interest?
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:50:25 GMT
I also see no way to edit your page, and I have no idea who might be a confluence space administrator
who could change permissions.

I was going to add to the pro-single-git-repo the point that you can check out exactly the
parts you want using git sparse-checkout.

I don’t think the decision to move to git can be made independent of choice of a git workflow.
 I’m strongly in favor of triangular workflow.

david jencks

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2015 6:43 PM, "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:50, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/~bimargulies@gmail.com/Felix+and+Git
>>> ?
>> Seems like a good start, although is that editable by others?
> I don't know. Try? I don't have perms to make a page on the Felix wiki , if
> I get some I will move it.
>> It seems like other technical issues were raised about the approaches, so
> it would be nice to see those added in there by people who have experience.
>> I admit, for me, SCM is a necessary evil and not something I get too
> exited about. I haven’t seen anything to prefer git over svn or vice versa.
> They’re just different hammers for the same nail.
>> Still, thinking about the options, it seems like multiple repos creates a
> maintenance headache to some degree. For example, line-ending handling is
> fairly difficult to get configured correctly in git. By having multiple
> repositories, then every repository would have to have this configured
> individually, since stuff like that is good to have configured uniformly.
> Any changes to how we want things uniformly handled would require manual
> propagation of configuration. Of course, this seems like it would be an
> issue in any proliferation of repositories (svn or git).
>> Or perhaps there is a better way to handle such issues?
>> -> richard
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org>
> wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/15 13:40 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>>> Richard S. Hall wrote
>>>>>> Well, the argument to the contrary is perhaps that is makes it more
>>>>>> difficult for us as a community to have oversight into releases.
>>>>>> almost assures us that some/many community members will never
> checkout
>>>>>> subprojects that aren't in the repository they normally work.
> Granted,
>>>>>> there is no guarantee of this now, since I can just check out what
>>>>>> want anyway...but at least it is fairly easy for me to do so now
> it
>>>>>> becomes more difficult if everyone spreads to their own repos.
>>>>>> So, in that regard, I'm more aligned with Marcel...all or nothing
> makes
>>>>>> more sense.
>>>>> Hmm, ok fair point - however, the *all* is the problematic part where
> we
>>>>> couldn't agree on last time (one git repo vs many git repos).
>>>> But isn't it then incumbent on those wanting such changes to convince
> us one
>>>> way or the other?
>>>> Personally, I'd rather just have one big git repo if we are going to
> switch,
>>>> if for no other reason than it seems like less overhead. However, I
> admit to
>>>> not really knowing the advantages/disadvantages.
>>>> Regardless, at a minimum, perhaps someone should create a documented
>>>> pros/cons list for the approaches. This would at least give us a way
> to call
>>>> a vote where we can feel somewhat informed about the choices (i.e.,
> stay
>>>> with svn, move to one git repo, move to many git repos).
>>>> Better than saying, "there is no consensus, so let's just go our
> separate
>>>> ways"...
>>>> -> richard
>>>>> We could still provide a script in the root of svn which checks out
> the
>>>>> moved projects from git and gives the same experience :)
>>>>> Carsten

View raw message