clattner at apple.com
Sat Jul 23 12:45:06 PDT 2011
On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Incremental development is probably promoted by DVCS far more than
>> others. Your comment seems to imply that only the tip of each push is
>> important. In the Git world, it usually isn't.
> Pushing a 100K patch is a 100K patch, whether it is done in one chunk or
> 100 smaller incrementell patches. Just because review for the former as
> a single chunk is a bit more complicated doesn't mean that reviewing the
> latter is attractive. Let's face it -- noone likes to review that much
> code in one go. There is also nothing stopping you from building smaller
> incrementell patches with other tools. It's been done before the
> invention of git after all.
+1. Also, note that term "the Git world" above implies that we would adopt both "Git the VCS" and "Git the linux kernel development workflow". One of these is plausible, the other is not.
Also, keep in mind that I weight opinions of people on the list roughly based on how much code they've contributed, bugs they've filed, dox written, etc.
I completely agree that git has lots of nice tangential advantages over SVN, but those advantages are not why we would switch to it. Folks who haven't come to grips with the fact that we are not fundamentally changing the development policy and workflow aren't helping the "we should switch to git" cause.
More information about the llvm-dev