On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The only way for this to actually happen would be for someone to set up a > git repo with a handful of packages and demonstrate that it works better > with the usual packaging workflow. That is what was done with SVN and why > it was chosen when we switched from CVS. > By the way, I am not sure anyone mentioned that there were actually two proposals for getting rid of cvs : git vs svn And svn won. >From http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003330.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Getting rid of CVS Last status report, I pointed this guy out. Roman responded with a vote for Jason's SVN proposal. In summary: * Jason has provided us with an svn solution, where sub-directories control the location of the package (i.e. package-name/repos/extra/PKGBUILD will place the package into extra) * Dan has provided us with a git solution that uses named branches to control the location (i.e. a branch named "testing" has changes to PKGBUILDs present only in the testing repo) I'm going to put my weight behind Jason's SVN proposal too, for the following reasons: * There is no reason to manage our packages in a distributed manner * SVN will be an easier transition for some users and developers unfamiliar with the esoteric commands of git. * It has a real implementation * One can use the git-svn porcelain on top of this, to still get the full power if git if they so wish. So, the next steps: Jason, can you provide us with some more details on your implementation, or perhaps something on gerolde as a preliminary system? I'd like to setup something side-by-side for people to use and to play with a bit. This way we can easily flesh out the hairier details. Paul, you did some similar work with repoman, yes? Do you have anything to add to this topic?
