I know that this is a controversial issue, but I feel I
might have come
across harsher than I intended.
I agree with Karoly that Git (or bzr or Mercurial or...) is
not the
answer to all our problems. Especially the lack of good,
stable
Windows/Mac GUI clients for all the aforementioned systems
is a big
showstopper. TortoiseHg is out, but still very much beta.
I think the keyword here is _eventually_. I hope that we can
all agree
that CVS is past its prime. Its many predecessors hold many
advantages
over it. Many new features that CVS will probably never
get.
So while we're not in a position to switch to something else
right now
or this year, it would still be wise to consider the
future.
I could rant endlessly about why distributed SCM is great
and boosts
productivity, makes it easier to try out crazy ideas. Makes
branching
and merging easier and so on, but I suppose you all know
this.
So all I'm saying is that we ought to consider switching to
something
else at some point in the future, because CVS isn't that
great now and
is not likely to get better.
Kind regards,
Mikkel Høgh
Gordon Heydon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The thing that I think that is needed is better
tracking of code
> authors. With GIT (and other systems) is that you can
see who who the
> patch.
>
> If you take a look at the Drupal 7 branch, it indicates
that the author
> is Dries, which is not true. Dries is the committer.
Using git we can
> see who the author and the committer is, as well as
patches can be
> signed by anyone who has handled the patch, eg a chain
of evidence.
>
> Lastly the biggest and best feature of git is the
branch handling, and
> being able to move patches from 1 branch to another is
very painless.
> With e-Commerce having multiple stable versions, this
feature has saved
> so much time.
>
> Also with e-Commerce I think that I need to move to a
system where I can
> track all the authores of the code since e-Commerce is
dealing directly
> wth people's money.
>
> Gordon.
>
> Victor Kane wrote:
>> Just to add my two cents worth... This concept is
doubly important,
>> not only in ridding the Drupal Community of the
deprecated CVS on the
>> level of source code versioning; but also because
of its powerful
>> distribution features: it is a _distributed_
version control system.
>>
>> As per http://git.or.cz/
>>
>> Besides providing a version control system, the
Git project provides
>> a generic low-level toolkit for tree history
storage and directory
>> content management.
>>
>>
>> Git gives each developer a local copy of the
entire development
>> history, and changes are copied from one such
repository to another.
>> These changes are imported as additional
development branches, and
>> can be merged in the same way as a locally
developed branch.
>>
>>
>> What I mean is, git has strong implications for
helping with the
>> eternal _build_ and development versioning problems
now inherent in
>> Drupal site-building: branching from production to
development, then
>> back into production...
>>
>> It it's good enough for Linux, it's good enough for
Drupal 
>>
>> Victor Kane
>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Gordon Heydon
<gordon heydon.com.au
>> <mailto:gordonheydon.com.au>>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Mikkel Høgh wrote:
>> > Hi Gordon,
>> >
>> > I have enabled "blame".
>> > I'm glad to see that Git is catching on
around the Drupal
>> community. I
>> > hope some day to be able to look back at
CVS as only a bad
>> memory ;)
>>
>> Yes that would be nice, but if something like
git were to be adopted
>> then we would still offer CVS as a entry level
so people can easily
>> commit stuff with having the ease of learning
git.
>>
>> > And yeah, it is big. It took hours to
import it with git
>> cvsimport, but
>> > amazingly, the whole repository only
takes up 15MB, which is
>> really
>> > impressive to me, since it includes the
entire CVS repository will
>> > themes, images and code with a lot of
changes these 8 years.
>> That's like
>> > 2MB per year.
>>
>> That is so cool, I need to check this out
more.
>>
>> > I'm afraid that we won't be so lucky with
the contributions
>> repository,
>> > but if we ever were to switch to Git or
something like it, it
>> would be
>> > madness to continue to have all 1000+
modules in the same
>> repository -
>> > it's maddening enough already ;)
>>
>> Yes I have been thinking about this, and I
think that we would
>> need to
>> break each of the projects out into there own
repositories, so they
>> would be easier to maintain, and divide up the
permissions.
>>
>> I really like git a lot, and I would be
interested in
>> collaborating on
>> this with you.
>>
>> Gordon.
>>
>> > //mikl
>> >
>> > Gordon Heydon wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> This is great. I have a git mirror of
the e-Commerce cvs and this
>> >> looks great.
>> >>
>> >> I did try and make a drupal mirror
but it would not import it
>> because
>> >> it was so big.
>> >>
>> >> It would be also nice if you can turn
on blame which is like
>> annotate.
>> >>
>> >> See what I have done at http://git.drupalecomm
erce.org
>> >>
>> >> Gordon.
>> >>
>> >> Mikkel Høgh wrote:
>> >>> Forgive me my shameless
self-promotion, but I'd like to draw
>> >>> attention to my newly created
Git-mirror of cvs.drupal.org
>> <http://cvs.drupal.org>
>> >>>
>> >>> Git ( http://git.or.cz/ ) is a great
version control system
>> that I
>> >>> use to keep my Drupal-sites
up-to-date, so a complete
>> mirroring of
>> >>> Drupals CVS with tags and
branches and all is a great step
>> forward -
>> >>> for me at any rate.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've made a longer blog post
about it here:
>> >>> http://mikkel.hoegh.org/blog/2008/a_git_mirror_for_
drupal_cvs
>> >>>
>> >>> The repository is here:
>> >>> http://git.l
ion47.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi
>> >>>
>> >>> Kind regards,
>> >>> Mikkel Høgh <mikkelhoegh.org
<mailto:mikkelhoegh.org>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:1000,47be9bdd44685696618876!
|
