buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Welcome to Rebase Hell!
Date Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:35:57 GMT
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is an interesting issue beyond just Git vs SVN and how the
> project is hosted.  As Assaf said, the Git repository is still synced to
> the
> SVN (and vice versa), so there isn't any real side-stepping going on.  In
> fact, committers could use SVN directly if they so choose (without any
> negative impact on an SVN-based workflow), it's merely personal taste which
> drives everyone to Git.  The interesting point though is that while in
> incubation, Vic's GitHub repo really became the "unofficially canonical"
> one.  While Buildr's site did point everyone to the SVN *first*, the
> culture
> was such that Git was really the convention/standard across the board.
> That's not to say that SVN was discouraged in any way, it just wasn't used
> (except as the main store-point once commits were made).


Actually, the Subversion repository was used directly.  By myself and others
for sure based on patches we've received.

We have to be very clear that the official repository remains the Apache
Subversion repository (at least until we get proper infrastructure for Git
at Apache).   All the Git / Github integration is provided for convenience,

This being said, having a designated Git repository (I'm trying not to use
the word official) makes everybody's life easier because it reduces rebase
hell.    So I think the confusion here is between official -- as in Apache
official -- and designated -- as in this is what the Buildr community
recommends if you're using Git.

The repository of reference remains at Apache and this is what is used to
cut any Apache releases.  No question about that.

alex

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message