Gwynne Raskind wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 19:03, David Soria Parra<
[email protected]> wrote:
Those wanting to use git and git workflows have a disadvantage when we stay with SVN.
Choosing a VCS happens from time to time and sometimes your favorit is not the winner.
I personally would love to see PHP moving to hg, but if more people like git more, the
hg people have to deal with it.
Agreed on both counts.
It _is_ nice to see that I am not alone in preferring hg ...
The RFC points out that there will be modules. We will_not_ copy the current SVN
history into one big repo. In fact having everything, pecl, php-src and co in one
repository does not make sense.
The original plan called for the SVN repo to be split up at some point
in the future, but DVCS gained traction and SVN went without any
attempts by anyone to put a proper workflow of any kind in place.
And I think this is the point.
With the right structure in place then it _will_ be easier for cross dvcs working. The current plan calls for all of php-src to be a single repo, with rules for moving extra modules in and out. That is the single repo I am referring to and potentially it will be as unwieldy as the libreoffice setup? It _is_ about time that splitting things up was considered in a little more detail so we can work on every module with the same ease as 'extra' extensions are now currently managed? Even the argument that one needs to see all the history at once has the alternative view that just seeing commits for a single module would be helpful?
( Note Pierre - I'm not using upper case for emphasis - I started text messaging when the printers only had upper case so I'm still learning these newfangled ways :) )
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php