www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Menard <nirvd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Writable git repositories
Date Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:50:32 GMT
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> Change brings instability, the question you need to ask is whether the
> improved effectiveness of teams outweighs the instability brought about
> by change.

Apologies, but I'm not sure if this is meant to be rhetorical or not.
I think it's a completely valid question to ask and discuss on the
list.  Having run both SVN and git servers on the same hardware for a
phased migration, I can draw from my experiences.  But, I wasn't
operating anywhere near the scale that the ASF is.  So, I guess it
would require someone more in the know than me to chime in.

> When svn replaced cvs, there was a lot of instability, but in the long
> term svn was being actively developed, while cvs was not, and the pain
> came with significant long term gain.

I assume this decision was made prior to the formation of the OpenCVS
project.  Neither here nor there, I suppose.  I thought the decision
was driven by technical advantages of SVN.  It appears it was done for
a different reason.

> In this case, it looks like the problems solved by git will soon be
> solved by svn, which means we get the gain, but at the cost of waiting only.

I don't know if it's fair for us to postulate what "soon" is.  I
recall this discussion coming up on the gsoc list in 2006 as a means
of letting student use an SCM while working on ASF projects.  So, that
was over three years ago and the distributed portion of SVN isn't even
targeted, it's just a long term goal.  I don't know enough about SVN's
internals and don't track their dev list, but it took something like
18 - 24 months to bang out merge tracking.  Maybe that will make the
distributed part easier for them, but we could be looking at a several
year period before it's available.

> So we suffer reduced effectiveness for a while, with the upside that
> instability is avoided.

The cost of that reduced effectiveness is borne by many projects to
avoid instability, but at other costs.  I obviously don't speak for
other projects . . . many are perfectly pleased working with SVN.  I
would just hate to see any project leave over the matter or for
contributors to move on to other projects that are easier to work on.


View raw message