myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [source control] git and the ASF ...
Date Sat, 16 May 2009 07:34:06 GMT
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Werner Punz <werner.punz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah lovely saturday morning and a general technology discussion.
>
> Ok here is the deal, it is a very common practice to use git for local
> versioning and svn or cvs for hosting the code (I do that very often). There
> are downsides to this practice. First of all git-svn does not have
> external parsing. Git has a similar mechanism subprojects but there is no
> bridget between git and svn in this regard, you have to symlink for instance
> manually to match the externals.
>
> Secondly it is a speed issue as well. Git is a distributed filesystem which
> does most operations locally and delegates the server to a storage system
> only. Which means you have local branches and local commit histories (one of
> the reasons why I use it) but the downside is it mirrors literally all
> revisions into you local filesystem (which is not as bad as it sounds since
> it stores the revisions very efficiently, way more than svn does) which
> means the initial mirror of a bigger project takes a very long time. And
> there the apache infrastructure which by far
> is not our idea comes into the game, having a read only git mirror
> speeds up this process much more swiftly.
>
> As for Andrews argument, this is no bothering from our side, as it seems the
> infrastructure people have been working on this for almost a year now and
> now have a stable infrastructure and many projects have moved
> towards this read only mirror.

+1 exactly and I thought that when I provide some links
(git.apache.org, the wiki pages etc) it makes it clear
that this is not something that Werner and I are doing :-)

Anyway there is a looooooooooooooooooooong on-going
discussion regarding GIT; pros/cons all the FUD etc. is
discussed on the members list (private, only for members).

I recommended to make it more open (community@ for instance);
Let's see where we heading

Also, if you follow some of the "Apache blogs" you also see that some
folks *care* about GIT .... (not only the two of us)

-Matthias

>
> The also seem to think about providing the same fo Mercurial in the future.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>>
>> I don't know much about git, but I know that other committers on
>> Apache Cayenne use git to commit to the Cayenne svn, so it's certainly
>> possible to do what Andrew suggests.   From my limited git
>> understanding, that's the typical practice of using git -- as a
>> front-end to svn or cvs.
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Robinson
>> <andrew.rw.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say -1. Seems pointless to use another version control client
>>> that is not 100% compatible with SVN when the SVN command-line and UI
>>> clients works fine. What next, a mercurial read-only repository too?
>>> We have chosen to use subversion with MyFaces at Apache, I don't see
>>> any reason to support other clients just to appease some peoples
>>> technology fix. But this is just my opinion.
>>>
>>> Note that there are tools out there to do this type of support from
>>> the client, not the server. For example,
>>> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/WorkingWithSubversion details
>>> how to use Mercurial as an SVN client and even be able to commit to
>>> SVN! In my opinion, if someone wants to use git, then they should find
>>> a similar tool for git and not burden the folks at Apache.
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>> FYI:
>>>
>>> http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn
>>> http://texagon.blogspot.com/2008/02/use-mercurial-you-git.html
>>> http://weblog.masukomi.org/2008/02/07/a-rebuttal-to-use-mercurial-you-git
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> some more infos:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>>>> <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Werner Punz <werner.punz@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, I filed this:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a
branch
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> (since we already work on 2.0.x....)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.1.x branch
>>>>>> 1.2 trunk
>>>>>> 2.0 branch
>>>>>
>>>>> hehe :-) just wrote a similar email :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.1 trunk
>>>>>> 1.2 trunk_1.2
>>>>>> 2.0 branch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this also helps the infrastructure people!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Mime
View raw message