On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 08:24:56AM -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
As the question goes, whether to switch to some distributed version control paradigm (whatever its name), I can't see a projected switch as a pure advantage. On the contary, I believe that there are two parties with different interests: one that prefers the distributed paradigm, and one that prefers the centralized paradigm. I personally think that both approaches make sense. But I know for sure that just as there are people who feel severely hindered by a subversion-like approach, there are others that would hate to work with the git "pile of crap". I estimate that the git addicts are a minority -- but who knows?
I use osc and really like it for what it does. I do like git. I do not think I am an addict, but I find it a lot more useful than svn, when many people are working and modifing the same code base. SVN and GIT each have there strengths and weaknesses. I would like to see git used. I think having git and osc should be able to co-exist.
One (general) thing to consider is that the bar shouldn't be set too high for newcomers. I encounter a surprising number of buildservice users, who don't even use osc, but only the web frontend. I assume that many are not proficient users of SCMs. To me it seems that an svn-like approach might be easier for them to get the grasp, then the distributed approach. It might only due to my own ignorance, of course. Anyway, it doesn't mean that I discourage applying a distributed SCM paradigm to the buildservice. The contrary is true, I think it could be a sane way to couple the internal and external buildsystem together (and others). BTW, I would find it a interesting exercise to look at hg (rather than git) in order to find out whether it can be married with osc somehow, or vice versa. But integration with git would also be possible I guess. Peter -- "WARNING: This bug is visible to non-employees. Please be respectful!" SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Research & Development