[ snip ]
+1 on github --- if we are to continue maintaining the svn
I feel that git has the best tools to work with it (git-svn, which
standard with git).
-1 on github and git in general. I realize that all the cool kids are
doing it, but Dojo has evolved to forge agreement, not to make
disagreement cheap. I want local commits in SVN, but the fundamental
thesis of DVCS is simply wrong for something like the Foundation.
Potential pros in my mind with github:
* easier to work with patches (historically we've been not so great
about bit rot and patches)
git doesn't solve the "it's hard to get eyes on patches" problem.
That's a social thing, and it's just a much a social thing w/ git as
it is w/ svn. This is a +0.
* easier to work with branches (we're not great about branching major
Agreed. But we've made this hard on ourselves too by not using a sane
SVN layout. Git won't magically fix that any more than just fixing our
SVN layout would. -0.
* social features around contributing and collaborating (I know, this
sounds nebulous, but it is a great way for new people to get involved
I'll buy that the ease of creating clones might feel liberating w/
git, and that SVN is squarely in the past since it doesn't deal w/
CL's and have local commits. These are personal frustrations of mine,
but they're not outweighed by:
* having bug tracking integration w/ the SCM in both directoins
* being able to enforce pre/post commit hooks
* the significantly simpler "who gave you this code?" chain in most
situations w/ SVN vs. git.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that it makes disagreement cheap, as
we've always made it pretty cheap to disagree. ;)
We've made it expensive to carry disagreements forward. Forks are
disagreements that you don't have the social graces to work through.
Making long-term disagreement expensive is a good and healthy thing.
Compromise is the essence of what Dojo is. Many things are hard, and
they require tradeoffs. Dojo makes informed tradeoffs. We do that by
creating a fora where people *need* to come to agreement, and our
current SCM has our back there.
I think there's
potential to make it easier to show different approaches and then come
to a resolution, and would argue that it expedites resolution.
I'll buy that. But we don't need github for that. Individuals can
already git-svn wrap our current tree to get that effect.
I think it's worth at least exploring, and I'd definitely like to hear
from Peter Higgins and others who have been using it for other things.
While I appreciate the potential social ramifications of changing a
we use, I'd like to strongly consider why it is benefiting other
projects and if it can benefit us, as is the case with any other tool
that's getting highly favorable reviews from people we trust.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
dojo-contributors mailing list
dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.orghttp://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
slightlyoff at google.com
alex at dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723