This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Git conversion: disposition of old branches and tags
- From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Paul_Koning at dell dot com, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:15:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: Git conversion: disposition of old branches and tags
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55F84AC9 dot 20501 at redhat dot com> <87oah3zk1i dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAFiYyc08jYUsDiB=em2fHc7_asd8ersZrDLT-hQzwN2wYRRQaQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <BBACA19F-9BAB-4214-BEDC-1869AA8319E4 at dell dot com> <55F996DE dot 7030501 at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdR0a+7v5w0dbLFFzL2E0wBXp8CrdGb+fN-vRD-BMh16ig at mail dot gmail dot com> <55F99D4D dot 2080204 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:48:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 10:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 16 September 2015 at 17:20, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >>My impression is that right now one can develop GCC with GIT or SVN (people
> >>are submitting GIT patches all the time). After the conversion, only GIT
> >>will be possible. Does this actually lower the entry barrier and will
> >>attract contributors?
> >Yes, I think so. "The kids" these days all want to use git, not svn.
> >That's harder to do because you have to set up git *and* git-svn.
> Right. And I find that dealing with the mixture of git and git-svn to be a
> real PITA.
> ANd it's not just the kids. As an "old fart" who has used a variety of
> mechanisms to manage GCC sources through the decades (including some that
> were never officially used), GIT wins hands-down.
and its not just for people who send patches upstream, there's others
who just want to follow progress of various topics running dev builds
and probably reporting issues.
as for ease of use come on I'm sure the emacs backup files have to win
hands down, after all it would be so consistant with how you edit ;-)
seriously though I actually think git is easier to understand than svn,
but that's just me.
> >>Wouldn't all this effort be better spent in getting finally rid of CVS for
> >>wwwdocs! If there was a SVN repository for wwwdocs, there could also be a
> >>GIT mirror! Using GIT to commit to wwwdocs, wouldn't that be cool!
> >Nice try ;-)
> >No, it wouldn't be cool. For the half dozen commits I make to wwwdocs
> >per year it would be slightly more convenient. But after comparing
> >that to the half dozen commits I make to the source code *per* *day*
> >(on a good day) I really don't care what repo the wwwdocs are in. I
> >don't do bisections on wwwdocs, I don't keep local branches, and noone
> >is going to create a Git mirror of wwwdocs on github so they can fork
> >our web pages more conveniently.
> >It's worth spending all this effort on the source repo because it's
> >more important than the wwwdocs repo.
> Right. Getting the source repo converted is the big prize here. THe www
> docs are a relatively small issue in comparison.