jasonwkim at google.com
Mon Jul 25 15:22:48 PDT 2011
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:54 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lot of good points.
> > Yep, switching to git would require a lot of work on the project
> > maintainers' side. Commit hooks, setting up repositories, rewording
> > policies in terms of the commands of the new tools, and that only to
> > regain the status the project already has - [...]
> All of which could be done on a mirror, with pushes to svn during the
> transition. Once it can be treated as the "official mainline", turn off
> svn. If it turn out ugly, keep svn.
Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for example,
we have lots of scripts that depend on svn revision numbers - all those
could be redone for git, but who wants to do work that they don't have to?
What "problem" is it solving?
Besides, the git-svn readonly bridge is a great solution for those who want
to use git - While I agree that dvcs is better (I use mercurial AND git
internally), I just don't see the rationale for forcing those who have
adopted svn to their workflow to go through a disruptive switch.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev