| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> A test of some sort would cut down the risk of the unexpected when we |
| 3 |
> do the real migration. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I understand the desire for this, but I don't think it will work. The |
| 6 |
first few hours/days after the git migration are going to be painful |
| 7 |
either way. If you run a test now, you'll get limited buy-in |
| 8 |
(everyone's busy with other stuff), which would probably also be |
| 9 |
rather biased (the most git/DVCS-averse devs are the least likely to |
| 10 |
participate). You certainly won't be able to emulate the load of the |
| 11 |
real tree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
IMO we should try to be cutting down barriers from the git migration, |
| 14 |
not throwing up more. The process has taken long enough already; the |
| 15 |
desire to control everything about the migration is part of why it's |
| 16 |
taken so long. I lived through Mozilla's Mercurial migration, and it |
| 17 |
was messy, too. That was probably worse, as there was less experience |
| 18 |
with DVCS at the time, but it will still be messy. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Dirkjan |
Archives