Version mismatch when building trunk

[Matthew Woehlke]

Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> So we really want to switch to git at some point in the future ?

Yes. Git isn't broken. Git is, in fact, awesome. What is "broken" is 
what we were doing to qt-copy before, in that it basically throws out a 
lot of history (even for typical svn usage, never mind how much more 
lacking svn is compared to git). However, the way we (ab)used svn in the 
past was *extremely* convenient for the rank-and-file developers.

Git doesn't allow the sort of carte-blanche abuse that qt-copy did, 
which makes it awkward (as we've seen) for anyone that wants to use 
kde-qt without actually developing on Qt. (Well, really, it does, it's 
just much more noticeably ugly. Still, if we weren't dumping the 
contents of branches onto qt-copy "trunk", we would have had the same 
issue with svn.)

I'm thinking that what we need is a new feature in git (if there isn't 
one we haven't found yet) to support the workflow we had with qt-copy. 
Because as we've seen, what we have now is painful... and it's going to 
*be* painful every single time we bump our Qt requirement, unless people 
just stop rolling their own Qt. (Which is rather difficult as long as we 
sometimes have KDE requiring a not-yet-released Qt.)

> What I have seen here for git looked so much more complicated, and
> additionally it seems I still have to actually _learn_ how to deal
> with all the branches,

For your own work, it is well worth it to learn about branches. Branches 
in git are so much infinitely better than svn, that you should be using 
them most times you are doing something more than a trivial change, and 
ALWAYS if you are working on multiple unrelated changes in the same 
module. That was painful in svn; git branches make it a breeze because 
there is almost zero overhead.

...But that's local branches. I agree the situation with kde-qt is a bit 
out of hand.

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
In the GNU/Linux world there are two major text editing programs: the 
minimalist vi and the maximalist emacs. I use emacs, which might be 
thought of as a thermonuclear word processor. -- Neal Stephenson (from 
"In the Beginning was the Command Line")