Re: Plans for git

On 2-9-2020 21:24, Rainer Duffner wrote:
>
>> Am 02.09.2020 um 18:22 schrieb Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Ed Maste <emaste_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 02:31, Steve Kargl
>>> <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>> A short intro on git for svn users:
>>>>> https://hackmd.io/ML5TSl8mQ5-27B5eqDf7YA?view
>>>>>
>>>> ROTFL.  From the "short intro", 2nd sentence.
>>>>
>>>> New committers are assumed to already be familiar with the basic
>>>> operation of Git.  If not, start by reading the Git Book.
>>> This doc started as a direct translation of the Subversion primer,
>>> which has as its first sentence:
>>>> New committers are assumed to already be familiar with the basic operation of Subversion. If not, start by reading the Subversion Book.
>>> As with the Subversion primer the doc is intended to provide a quick
>>> reference for day-to-day commands, but not act as a reference or
>>> introduction to the entire theory of operation of the associated VCS.
>> The rest of the guide walks people through how to do the job, but without all the theory for the basics.
>>
>> Again it needs some work for the advanced topic it currently just omits…
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but I had to think of this:
>
>
> https://xkcd.com/1597/
>
>
> The project was announced a while back in the quarterly status report (that’s the first time I read about it at least).
>
> It’s obviously a huge undertaking, the people taking part in it should be commended, not ridiculed (IMO).
>
> For people who don’t have much exposure to git, it can be very obnoxious.
>
> Though these days, a lot of people assume git=github and the GUI there certainly makes things easier.
>
> If it wasn’t completely riddled with security-holes, I would recommend the project to run its own gitlab instance - but for a project this size, you’d be looking at a FTE just herding that bag of cats and constantly upgrading it…

I was thrown in the deep when I started the Ceph-FreeBSD port, and it 
certainly is no walk in the park.
But then again every new tools has that problem.
Git in itself is a tool like any other, some things are easier, some are 
hard to grasp.

For me Git without Github (or any other reviewing environment) is only 
half the change, so I'm wondering where code review will take place.
But then perhaps I should read the document.
Pushing PRs has sort of grown on me over time.

--WjW