Why is Git for some only the one perfect DVCS and no discussion is possible? From Git is the only DVCS caring about performance incl outdated benchmarks, to the ‘all DVCS’ systems are hard’ and lastly ‘switching VCS systems is easy’. Regarding the latter, who is going to do the conversion? I am fully willing to do Bazaar (perhaps Mercurial.. I’d first would have to investigate that). But Git? Even a ‘am I capable?’ would dismiss me from doing that. Anyway, from following the stuff before the CVS->SVN switch, to fixing loads of things afterwards, switching a VCS system not at all as easy as some make it out to be. Just the under estimation makes me worry.
When I see something which is broken, I cannot just leave it without trying to fix it (aside from lacking time and if I am able to, but ‘able’ is pretty easy with root access). From DNS stuff, to LDAP, accounts process (Mango), SVN repos creation, etc. Although I’d really love if more GNOME sysadmins would be active… anyway, if Git is considered to be the only option and the attitude regarding the ease of switching stays the same, I do not want to have the ability to fix whatever was forgotten or broken.
8 Replies to “Git git git”
Comments are closed.
Great rant. Very lucid. …
That was one of the weirdest postings I have seen in a long time. Keep up the work.
I don’t care if we have bzr, hg, tla, cvs or whatever else on gnome.org as long as I can use git.
I’ve only been under the impression, that you admins only wanted to support one SVCD, in which case, it obviously has to be git.
I don’t believe you are alone in this view, the GIT people are just very vocal.
Bzr people are vocal too.
As Company (otte) said, I’m fine with SVN as long as I can use git for my daily work. git-svn is a great tool, and I think that despite SVN makes everyone rant a little, switching to a VCS tool will make half of the gnome crowd rant more: there is no git-bzr tool, and I don’t know whether there is a bzr-git one (and if there is one, we should switch to git since it wouldn’t harm the bzr people ;-))
S.F.: I think Bzr has several drawbacks. However, these are acknowledged by the devs, and there is a roadmap to fix those. So I don’t consider e.g. Bzr ready ATM. But that doesn’t matter, as I know it is being worked upon, and preparations take months anyway (e.g. just a distro upgrade of svn.gnome.org took a lot more preparation that you might see from the outside.. dealing with contingency, etc .. further some sysadmin stuff like switching LDAP replication methods won’t be noticed at all).
And actually, I do like the Bzr and Git mirrors for the reason that everyone could use their own tool. However, the backend (SVN) isn’t great as it doesn’t track enough information. Further, the git-svn is not at all like plain Git. While Bzr works fine (as far as I’ve experienced).
It is really unfortunate that you cannot just use your own tool.