Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:44:46 +0200 From: Stas Verberkt <legolas@legolasweb.nl> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What replaces csup? Message-ID: <21e99057b51b3078055dc9f2626bd0bc@homey.local> In-Reply-To: <20120918081624.173ea6e1@scorpio> References: <D97788AE24B7FFB0C79AA6FB@localhost> <k38bct$ang$1@ger.gmane.org> <780066C6E2FAB67A997876B7@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <20567.50041.903201.979498@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209172102400.26215@wonkity.com> <75ca1e92e2a51857615e193434898bf5@homey.local> <CAHu1Y70vLTQaGLQd_S65cyQe6RErgXJg2iy9VUDr9z6xXKwqyQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120918081624.173ea6e1@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jerry schreef op : > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700 > Michael Sierchio articulated: > >> We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that >> disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network >> bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious >> project >> I know of will have moved from subversion to git. > > If you are going to make a sweeping change anyway, it makes no sense > to > do it in a half–assed manned. However, it does appear that in all too > many instances, FreeBSD plays follow the leader rather then taking > the > bulls by the horns and getting ahead of the curve. I am sure I'll be > hearing from the "baby steps" choir now. In any event, a > comprehensive > side-by-side evaluation of the two should be done by an impartial > party. > We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two different workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, and the former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not really have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more about the production cycle you want to have. If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) be in control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested changesets by the community of developers. This community would be more free in the manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong differentiation between "committers" and other people suggesting updates. On the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of committers and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the schedule and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely simplified.) It is a matter of taste. On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a complete repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite "heavy-weight". Stas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21e99057b51b3078055dc9f2626bd0bc>