On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 19:55 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > I think of it less as a question of /liking/ CVS, and more an admission > that a global workflow change has real costs for each individual developer. > > A "flag day"-style transition is clean and efficient, but often locks > out developers who are not able to march in lock-step with the > transition schedule. > > I am very pro-git (naturally, being a kernel developer) and want this > switch, but it nonetheless means my home-written scripts for maintaining > related project packages (cld, chunkd, tabled) must be updated and > tested. Even without local script updates, developers have to learn new > stuff just to keep functioning at the same level as before. Because we are not just moving source control backends, but also changing workflow, a cvs gateway to the git server wouldn't get you very far, unless it's a pretty hacked up gateway. If somebody wants to work on a gateway that's cool, I'm not considering it a blocker to rolling out the change, once we have a working proof of concept and a solid migration plan blessed by FESCo. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
