I've only recently gone from svn to git and honestly git is freaking awesome sauce. I'm pretty sure what you are missing is how much nicer having local branches can be for local development. The cvs way would be multiple checkouts, and a lot of manual diffing and merging. If Classpath were on svn at least then you could use git svn as a contributor with ease. But yea, git and github are pretty sweet. Brian Sent from my iPhone On Dec 8, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/08/2010 11:23 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> Hi Andrew, > > Hi. > >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 12/08/2010 10:56 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Anyway, I don't mind that as long as someone else does it. (Clearly, >>>>> the issue of developers without commit access is a red herring, as >>>>> every developer should have commit access.) >>>> >>>> But it's not a red herring! I don't expect to have commit rights to >>>> GNU Classpath. I'm more than happy to send patches to the list and >>>> have someone else merge them (that's in fact a model I personally >>>> prefer). >>> >>> This model does not scale. Also, it is unreliable: no-one should >>> commit a patch they haven't tested themselves. It leads to extra >>> work. It's also bad because it leads to two classes of developers, >>> those with and those without commit access. >> >> Well, you know, it works just fine for the Linux kernel so as a >> general statement, that's just not true. > > It's been identified as a bottleneck for the Linux kernel. However, > that's the way they like it. > >>> Every developer should commit their own patches. >> >> I didn't mean to start an argument on what kind of development model >> GNU Classpath should be using. But I don't quite agree with the above >> statement because waiting for commit access creates a barrier for >> people who just want to submit simple one-liners. > > I'm happy to commit simple one-liners. However, as soon as people do > more than that they need copyright assignment, and once they've done > that they have commit access. > >> In any case, even if everyone did have commit access, CVS is still >> painful for *local* development. > > Not for me. I mean, it's not great, but it's hardly a big factor in > the time it takes to develop code. > > Andrew. >
