So due to these two factors and more I believe that this is the only possible decision. Now, I will address your specific points...
Hi,
On 04/02/2017 21:14, Giah de Barag wrote:
> Git repositories that support SVN clients merit consideration because
>
> (a) some tools have SVN clients and not Git,
>
> (b) some people understand SVN better than Git, and
>
> (c) they bridge the two paradigms, giving more freedom (and time to shift when one wants to shift).
I think we had a pretty heated discussion about the move to git and we
had a couple of conditions set up by people to accept the move. If these
conditions "fail" we should discuss stuff again.
Can you be specific about which conditions you're referring to? A lot of things were discussed and I want to make sure these aren't things that only you are concerned about. So, for clarity, please enumerate them here for all to see and discuss as I would like to clear them from the table once and for all.
I happen to have used git more since we made the decision and I can
still only write I dislike it. There is only one way to describe the way
it interfaces, handles errors, conflicts and similar: braindead. One
could almost think it is made to be unfriendly. At the time of CVS
issues were due to its brittle foundation, but now there is no excuse.
Thank you for your personal opinion. I don't share it. I realize you will never like anything which progresses beyond svn. If you can conceive of a *technical* reason that svn is in any way superior I would be all too happy to listen. Also, I happen to like the way it reports errors. The way it reports conflicts is very clear.
Anyway, I agree with you, having SVN as a checkout way is very nice, as
well as way to create patches. Two-way would be nice, but I would be
happy to have a "read-only" checkout using SVN (or even CVS?) since it
would be handy to test, compile and generate patches on certain
computers with more exotic setups. Afterwards a commit could be pushed
by a computer actually having GIT after having applied the patch.
Cumbersome, but would do for me.
Apparently the SVN frontend is easily available only on github.
Yes. This is correct. Github has an svn interface.
It *itches* for me to ask people to have a github account to work on the
project, I'd really prefer savannah.
As I said above. Due to this being a *distributed* source code control system you can commit to any remote repo you like. Either on github it Savannah. This should be easy to do. People don't neeeed to have a github account, but it would be good if they had one. As itches go this is pretty minor.
About the dual-mastering proposed by Richard, I leave to other git
experts the question if it is possible or not.
It is. Thanks. This was the primary use case for git. So yeah. This will work.
I also wonder that if, in the (unlikely?) future, savannah will have
better GIT support in the future, we can move everything to savannah
without issues. Again, I'm no git expert here, so I let other reply, I
suppose that it will be actually easier than SVN.
I would keep this door open in case some FSF people get heated up: want
us on savannah as a master? give us better savannah.
Indeed. I hope they do.
Riccardo
GC