Re: git for Darwin?

[Jim Meyering]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) wrote:
>     this change would not force you to learn about or use git.
>
> Granting that git is a zillion times better than cvs, even so, far fewer
> people can contribute to a git repository than cvs.
>
> As I understand it, the reason for the proposal is because branches are
> supported better in git.  But isn't wanting to make branches tantamount
> to making releases?  And isn't that something we already concluded (a
> dozen times) that we do not want to do for gnulib?   Do we want to
> change the entire infrastructure to support it in an "ideal" way?
>
> Are the simpler solutions suggested by Bruno (don't run cvs update)
> and/or Paul (having a special gnulib-srcdir) for the run-up to a release
> unlivable?

Hi Karl,

My suggestion to use a dVCS was mostly independent of branching.
As I said in reply to Eric, just specifying a date should be
good enough for purposes of "tagging".  No need for tags after all.
cvs can checkout based on a date, after all.

Git is good for lots of reasons, not least of which, each
developer has the entire repository at his/her fingertips (locally),
common operations are blindingly fast (e.g., no network latency for diffs)
For me, the main reasons involve immediate access to logs and history,
as well as speedy diffs.

Obviously I have not explained the usage scenario clearly enough.
I'll try again.

There would be two repositories, one CVS, one git.  They would be kept
in sync automatically.  People would be able to get the latest sources
by checking out or updating from either of them.  Patches made against
one would apply equally well against the other (but we'd commit changes
only against the git repo), so contributing by sending patches would
still work just as well.  I.e., you could continue to use CVS and to run
"cvs update" to get the latest.  The only difference comes if you want
to check in changes.  Then you'd need to learn some git basics and
end up doing "git commit file..." instead of "cvs commit file...".

clear as mud?