clattner at apple.com
Mon Jul 25 21:31:55 PDT 2011
On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Jason Kim wrote:
> 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.
Great point. A potential conversion to git should be motivated by its benefits - assuming no development policy change - and that benefit needs to be greater than the various costs of conversion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev