[haiku-development] Re: Finally deciding on a new source control system for Haiku
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 22:45:20 +0200
On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:38:46 +0100 Adrien Destugues
<pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, answering to multiple mails at a time as there was a lot of
> discussion on this (again...) today :
>
> First of all, please everyone remember we, the Haiku project, are not
> willing to switch to a completely decentralized workflow. The switxh to
> a DCVS system has a main goal, which is simplifying the handling of
> patches that currently go through a long review process on Trac, slowing
> down the development. SVN was proven unable to handle this, so the
> switch to a DCVS is seen as the only solution.
I would appreciate, if you didn't speak for all of us on topics we haven't
voted on or otherwise found a consensus. At least for me improving the
Trac/patches workflow is only a secondary goal. Having a better tool (that is
less broken when it comes to merging and that sports all the nice DVCS
features) is the primary goal for me.
Besides, I don't even think that patches becoming impossible to be applied has
been a common problem. There are other Trac/features that would help a lot more
with our patch workflow than a new VCS would (there was a GSoC application for
improvements in that regard).
> The goal, however, is to keep our current centralized workflow, and only
> use some DCVS features to ease things that were painful in SVN.
There have been a few discussions about the workflow, but beyond that most
(all?) people seemed to prefer to continue having a central, official
repository, I don't recall any specifics everyone has agreed upon. Definitely
not that we don't want to use certain features of the potential tools.
[...]
> We don't want people making easy forks, moving away from the current
> server setup, or anything else. We want to keep the current setup as
> much as possible, while still adding these improvements. Switching to
> github would be a way too big move for that. It has a great risk of
> going out of control.
I really wish you wouldn't speak for all of us. At least I don't see any "going
out of control" risks. If we switch to git, I'd consider it inevitable that
people would clone the official repository on GitHub, Gitorious, etc. and I
don't see a problem with that. On the contrary, I'd even encourage a more open
development.
Where we host the official repository is mostly a technical matter. I guess
we'll have more flexibility hosting it on our own server. That doesn't mean
that we couldn't have auto-updated clones on GitHub/Gitorious/...
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
