Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:09:32 +0200 From: Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, "Simon L. B. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, Matthew Fleming <mdf356@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64") Message-ID: <20110126070932.GA3086@tops.skynet.lt> In-Reply-To: <20110124113306.GA79890@freebsd.org> References: <AANLkTi=-VsVpXH-549UNuHcNZfBH_YHrN-9JBpgWh4A8@mail.gmail.com> <20110124113306.GA79890@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (24/01/2011 11:33), Alexander Best wrote: > On Mon Jan 24 11, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> wrote: > > > On 2011-Jan-21 20:01:32 +0100, "Simon L. B. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk> wrote: > > >>Perhaps we should just set the tinderbox up to sync directly of cvsup-master instead if that makes it more useful? > > > > > > Can cvsup-master still lose atomicity of commits? I suspect it can, > > > in which case syncing directly off the SVN master would seem a better > > > approach. > > > > I've seen a lot of `self-healing' failures lately w.r.t. cvsup, so I > > wonder if it's time to look at another solution to this problem as > > these annoying stability issues don't appear to be going away. What > > about git? > > > > Just some things I'm able to rattle off that come to mind with git.. > > it would also be nice to have github running on freebsd.org. that way it would > be much easier to discuss src changes without having to point people at a file, > a function or even a specific line. also it would finally kill the > mailinglists, which have lots of issues: spam, broken mailman installation, > people going berserker when they see lines > 80 etc. there have been a few > attempts to introduce a code review system, but since that was all hosted on > foreign websites the idea never cought on and afaik those websites weren't > being supported/promoted by freebsd.org. Having github would be nice, but it's not open source. Another option could be gitorious, there are merge requests with review option[1], patch review, already hosted freebsd repository[2]. All we need as a first step is developers starting accepting merge requests from each other, people use it already[3]. 1. http://blog.gitorious.org/2009/11/06/awesome-code-review/ 2. http://gitorious.org/freebsd 3. http://gitorious.org/freebsd/repositories > but personally i don't expect a change like this to happen in the near future. > basically most of the freebsd administrative people are quite conservative. i > wouldn't be surprised if some them are still trying to run freebsd on their > typewriters. ;) > > cheers. > alex > > > > > Some arguments `for git'... > > > > 1. One tool to rule them all: > > - cvsup/csup can be replaced with git archive [1]. > > - cvs git scales a bit better. > > - less support cost for p4 and lower likelihood of downtime in the > > event of critical failure (perforce's proprietary DB is a pain to > > recover I've recently discovered from other dealings). > > - svn <-> cvs exporter is no longer required as it's all one SCM. > > - As a side-effect, the bits present in CVS and SVN would now be > > 100% in sync, unlike cvs which can lead svn in terms of commits (at > > least that was the case when I last talked to someone about version > > numbering in pkg_install done by re@). > > 2. More evolved tool: > > - branches are cheap and can be local or remote. > > - distributed SCM seem to work well with large groups of developers. > > - works better with branching and merging from what I've seen. > > > > Some arguments against git... > > - The one caveat to cvsup/csup that's awesome is its componentization > > capability, i.e. being able to selectively download components in src > > / ports; I'm not 100% sure but there doesn't appear to be a clear > > analog in git. It might be achievable through gits remote.<group> in > > git-config, git-remote, etc, but I would need to prototype whether or > > not this is true. > > - Higher learning curve. > > - Some slightly annoying nits with stashing local changes when working > > on separate branches (need to talk to git maintainers). > > - <More items might be here> > > > > Some more git experienced folks could comment here, but it would > > be nice to unify all of the systems under `one flag' for the sake of > > simplicity and hopefully the sanity of the tool maintainers (Simon, et > > all). > > Thanks! > > -Garrett > > -- > a13x > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110126070932.GA3086>