| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> a) we are moving to GIT which doesn't cope with $Header: $ stuff |
| 3 |
Please drop this notion. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
My work on the Git mailing lists has strictly been: |
| 6 |
- IFF Gentoo WANTED to switched to Git, how would Git have to change. |
| 7 |
This was my posting to the Git mailing list: |
| 8 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/44298/focus=44473 |
| 9 |
Summarizing from that list: |
| 10 |
#1 History slicing - In Git already, some minor bugs I identified |
| 11 |
#2 Subtree slicing - External patchset to Git, WIP |
| 12 |
#3 ACL support - Patch was posted to the Git ML yesterday, needs some |
| 13 |
Gentoo-specific polishing. |
| 14 |
#4 Keywords - see the massive threads on the Git ML that were spawned |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
These also intersect with my own needs for Git for work projects, so I |
| 17 |
can justify some of my work time for doing some Git development. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, from a VCS management point of view, and understanding the |
| 20 |
results of Antarus's GSoC2006 work [1], SVN wasn't really suitable on |
| 21 |
the server or client side (massive disk hog compared to CVS amongst |
| 22 |
other things). The best option on the management side of things, is |
| 23 |
still to stick with CVS at the moment. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml but |
| 26 |
beware that the results themselves are from August 2006, and have |
| 27 |
changed radically for Git - SVN may have changed radically as well, I |
| 28 |
don't follow SVN enough to know. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member |
| 33 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives