Re: Plans for git

Just my +100500 to this.

On 20/09/2020 18:03, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2020-09-19, Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hrm.  Maybe what I hear others saying, tho, and not entirely being replied
>> to is just a nice concise document of the why.  What I hear you saying is
>> that GIT has momentum and that it's popular... (and I accept that --- it is
>> evidently true), but then I hear handwaving about features, but no list of
>> features that are a clear win/loose.
> 
> How about the very basics (that Warner appears to have lost sight
> of)?
> 
> Git is a distributed version control system.  You clone a repository
> and apart from pulling and pushing changes to another repository,
> all your work happens with the local repository.  Subversion has a
> central repository and needs to talk to the server all the time.
> Laptop on a plane?  No change of workflow with Git.
> 
> And since it's your repository, you can cheaply create your own
> branches, where you can commit your work and have a versioned history
> of it instead of just a flat diff.  I can't overstate the value of
> that.  Whether you work on something that will be pushed back
> upstream or just your private changes, it has a full commit history.
> You can easily revert commits, you can upstream it one by one, you
> can upstream it with history.
> 
> When FreeBSD switched from CVS to SVN, there was hope or promise
> of lightweight branches, but that never materialized.  Developers
> still can't have private branches in the FreeBSD repository.  For
> a while, a lot of development happened in a Perforce repository--a
> commerical version control system, whose company had donated a
> license--which offered this feature.  Nowadays, everybody who does
> any but the most trivial development does so in a private Git
> repository anyway.  It only makes sense to interface this directly
> with the FreeBSD repository instead of going through a SVN<>Git
> media break.
> 
>> Certainly the only clear things a quick search turns up that seem relevant
>> is that GIT is GPL2.0 and SVN is Apache2.0.  This was enough for LLVM vs
>> GCC and the repository is a core function, but I suppose not a necessary
>> function for forked projects that can't abide, so...
> 
> There is a bit of historical precedent: The original BSD work at
> Berkeley was kept in a SCCS repository, a proprietary version control
> system at the time.
> 
> And of course the fact that significant FreeBSD development has
> effectively happened in Perforce, then in Git for a long time and
> is just merged back into the Subversion repository.  To put it
> bluntly, the people doing the work have voted with their feet years
> ago.
> 


-- 
Andriy Gapon