demerphq wrote:
I dont get your rationale, all that git would do is make your current
work flow easier and more efficient. However for other people who are
say doing collaborative development on similar features (like what
avar and I are doing) would have our lives made simpler.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means.

My workflow is fine. I don't want to know which merges by which other
people I need to accept into my local repository. That is *much* more
work for me than to simply mirror the trunk. If git makes your life
easier, then use it; but don't assume it will make MY life easier.
Again I dont follow you. Generally speaking my changes to the regex
engine aren't vetted. Im sure that a cursory inspection of the patches
occurs, but beyond that, I doubt much. Similarly I doubt your changes
to the version object receive much more than a cursory review as you
are the version object expert and have been contributing long enough
that you are trusted. Similar logic applies to many of the developers.
There is an official branch of Perl, currently called perl-current,
which contains all of the code that will [probably] become v5.10.0. It
contains both your regex code and my version object code. No working
copy without those features included is, in my estimation, of any use to
anyone. I wouldn't merge your changes in to my local repository until
they are added to the "official" branch, no matter what VCS we agree on,
because there is precisely zero information that I bring to bear on it.
Once it is part of the official branch, if it breaks my code, I have
an incentive to deal with it.

Just because git gives me the ability to only merge patches as I choose,
doesn't mean I have any incentive, or really any hope of knowing which
ones to merge. RGS, as with any pumpking, gets to decide which patches
get blessed; I simply don't have the knowledge required to make those
decision on my own. So even if we switched to git, the only way I would
reasonably use it is to track the perl-current branch, in whatever form
that would take. And if that is the case, there is nothing that git is
providing me.
but I'd what *I'd* really like to have a depth 1 mirror (i.e. only
the current trunk at any time).
AFAICT you just described git.
I may be able to use git like that, but that isn't what all of the git
proponents are arguing. It is wonderfully flexible; I just don't see
that we want or even need most of that flexibility. I want SVK (for a
thin working copy, local branches, smart merging, etc.), but I want the
mirror implemented by a remote repository with the full change history,
since the *vast* majority of the time I don't need the history, only the
current trunk. If I can use SVK as a front end to git, that is probably
the only way I would use git.


John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase