From: Czarek <cezary.baginski@...>
Date: 2011-01-08T21:04:11+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:34249] Re: Moving to Git?


--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:25:40PM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:39, Florian Gilcher <flo@andersground.net> wrot=
e:
>=20
> > I want to add another point to this:
> >
> > =C2=A0- What is the estimated time cost of the transition, including
> > finding solutions to the mentioned transition problems? Who is
> > going to invest that time instead of working on MRI?  =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ->
> > having a look at the postgres migration report[1], this cost can
> > be easily underestimated
>=20
> And estimated time saved in the long run.

I'm having a hard time comming up with *differences* compared to the
what we have now (svn, github).

Here is my shot (ordered by impact):

diff --git a/ruby b/ruby.no_svn_patched
--- a/ruby
--- b/ruby.no_svn_patched

  - good workflow and predictable releases
  + everything broken for a long while just to "move to git"

  - bad PR because we are "still using SVN"=20
  + less threads like this and less explaining=20

  - more contributions mean more integration work
  + integration costs possibly lowered for core team=20

  - infrastructure and repo maintenance costs
  + maybe go full GitHub instead of Redmine (not that I suggest this)

  - central repo may become bottleneck in the far future (?)
  + we could offload and manage >1MB of patches monthly if that ever
  is an issue


As for transition issues, I am sure a lot of people (especially git
fans) would be more than happy to help the core team outsource the
efforts, so they can continue as usual, unless they consider the work
more fun than working on the MRI.

Just like there is a git mirror for the repository, we could have a
git or git based "mirror" of the infrastructure
("redmine-git" at ruby-lang.org, mailing list, commit hooks, etc.) for the
core team to play with and accept or not.

If the transition is *really* easy, this shouldn't be a problem and if
it isn't, we would take our time to solve issues before we even try to
switch.

@Matz, could you give us a statement about plans and conditions
regarding git, or do you want more time/feedback?

Thanks,

Cezary

--=20
Cezary Baginski

--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk0oUkAACgkQgEYXSknSpI+LjACggJ6JRILUoRQ5z+no8b018s9I
p/oAoIPau4UTfG1Vk2jRJfapM2x9bmAl
=d75D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--