clarification on git, central repositories and commit access lists

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007 01:26:00 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > i'll be really unimpressed if i have to maintain multiple source trees
> > based on 'random' SCM migration, e.g. kdepim is git but kdegraphics is
> > svn. right now we have a pretty high % of people who track the whole of
> > KDE, and that's only going to get hurt with a spotty transition.
>
> Why would you have to maintain multiple source trees in case kdepim moved
> to git first?
>
> If the kdepim team would want to move the majority of their development to
> git then you would hardly notice (as a svn user), AFAICT.
>
> Their git trees (most likely more then one) would be published somewhere
> for kdepim enthusiasts to follow and develop on, but in the end you'd
> still need to move the patches that will eventually end up in the final
> release to subversion.

which means that between releases they'd have one less person testing their 
code and one less person making the odd fix here and there. i track every 
module and have used HEAD/trunk kdepim for the entirety of the kde2 and kde3 
series for my day to day use.

unless their git trees were synced on a very frequent basis with svn and 
unless i could commit to svn and have it sync'd back to one of their trees, 
there's no point in me dealing with running trunk/ apps.

unlike some people, i actually consider eating dogfood to be pretty important. 
i'm running kde4 on my desktop at home as much as possible and will 
transition all my systems to it, no matter how painful, when we move to RC's 
if not earlier.

that's how i roll, and making it harder for other people to do that seems 
downright shortsighted.

i'd also suggest that there are already enough barriers to contributing to 
kdelibs from application developers that we don't need to widen those rifts.

to be perfectly honest: i find it jaw droppingly amazing how cavalierly people 
take dividing our development community. it's as if the tools we use are 
somehow more important than the social structures. that priority is 
completely backwards.

it's also as if it's too easy to get involved with the KDE project these days 
so we need to make it more complicated to do so. websites in svn is my 
favourite example of that mind set, techbase is my current favourite 
counter-example.

perhaps we take a lot for granted as people who are used to dealing with kde 
week in, week out. spending time with those who are on the outside might be 
an eye opener?

whatever it takes, let's get our priorities straight.

now, don't get me wrong. i am very much in favour of moving to something 
better than svn. i think git is a great candidate; perhaps even -the- 
candidate in the mid-term. at the same time, i don't want to see that 
transition cause unnecessary problems.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070821/02b5c70a/attachment.sig>