KDE development with git

[Maurizio Monge]

Ouch, i was replaying to luciano's post and when my post was approved
by moderators of kcd it was no longer up to date with the discussion,
so please excuse me.
Thiago, yours are very good reasons, i hope we will be able to talk
again about this when git and friends will be more mature and we'll
have more feedback from other projects about caveats/benefits, and in
the meanwhile we will keep doing experiments with alternative VCS and
trying to understand if they would be good for kde or not.

On 7/12/07, Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org> wrote:
> Maurizio Monge wrote:
> >Looks like that you (you all?) did not understand what Paolo was asking.
> >Paolo stated *very clearly* that he was not asking a switch to git but
> >just *some support* for projects that would like to use git and still
> >being part of the KDE project.
>
> No, I think we did.
>
> The problem is that you're skipping the whole months of discussion on what
> KDE's next VCS will be. Everyone asking for git right now is skipping
> that.
>
> >For instance being able to register a git repository on kde.org would
> >be a very good step in this direction (consider also that git does not
> >even require a "git" server, http or ssh will just do!).
> >I really don't understand your accept_or_die policy, if a project
> >would like to use a different VCS i think that no *very good reason*
> >is required.
> >Considering that KDE has the very liberal policy "you have write
> >access for almost everything" (an i'm happy of it), i don't understand
> >why you should impose "but you must use SVN!!!"
>
> There are a couple of reasons:
> 1) setting up a repository is more than just "here's an ssh account". It
> means the server where that ssh account is hosted must be secured so that
> the ssh account won't be a vector for a hack attempt. It means the server
> needs to have some shared space where other ssh accounts can read and
> write to. It also means there must be a backup procedure in place.
>
> All of that means more work to the sysadmins, who already don't have much
> time.
>
> 2) we will not port our scripts to other VCS. That's scripty, that's Krazy
> (EBN), that's the Coverity scan. That means you *still* need to import
> code to subversion for translations and all those goodies.
>
> 3) if we allow git, we'll have to allow hg, darcs, bzr, etc. Then it's no
> longer "one more tool" to learn, it's several.
>
> 4) many people build all of KDE and do fixing commits here and there as
> needed. It depends on their goodwill to move to another system. Heck! I
> know many developers who took over a YEAR to move to Subversion after we
> decommissioned CVS! If we bring in several more repositories, those
> people will probably not build your code and test it.
>
> I think the most important points are 2 and 4. I believe that moving code
> away from Subversion means it'll decrease in quality. And it'll have no
> translations...
>
> --
>  Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>   PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
>   E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
>
>


-- 
Ciao
Maurizio
http://stregatto.wordpress.com

"Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun" (John Lennon)