We keep having this discussion, and every time the answer is "no - stick with what we currently do". Can we please stop having it over and over again?
Until someone can point out a problem that (a) needs solving and (b) can only be solved by making a huge change to a DVCS, there is no reason to keep going over this ground.
On Aug 20, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, we've seen enough pain from git+svn to definitely not want to go that route.
>> Personally I have had no problems with git svn. In fact every commit I have made in the last 6 months has been with git svn dcommit. Any issues have been user error as I have to push/pull from my cluser tree (which gets out of sync a lot-- can't update it easily from off-site).
> Keep in mind that that is not what Mike is proposing. :-)
> github has some cleverness that allows both svn and git clients to the same repository.
> That being said, I think that this is a pretty large discussion:
> - do we want to move to a DVCS?
> - if so, which one: hg or git?
> - if we move, will IU host it, or will we use Bitbucket / github?
> - what do we do about a bug tracker?
> - continue to use Trac?
> - use the bug tracker on Bitbucket / github?
> - ...?
> - who will do all the migration work?
> - official source code migration
> - existing open ticket migration
> - user migration
> - ...probably some other things I'm not thinking of
> - who will develop the "best practices" guidelines for use of a DVCS? Examples:
> - is rebasing before committing encouraged/required/discouraged/...etc.
> - how do we do version release branches -- different repos, or branches within a repo, or ...?
> - ...etc.
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> devel mailing list