[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: transition from CVS to Git?

From: John Darrington
Subject: Re: transition from CVS to Git?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:25:55 +0900
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 06:50:16PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
     I want to propose transitioning PSPP from CVS to Git, following
     the 0.6.0 release, for the following reasons among others:
             * Git supports atomic commits and file and directory
             * Git is fast.  It only uses network access to a remote
               server for initial checkouts and updates and for
               pushing changes to the server.
             * Git has excellent support for branching.  Branching is
               easy enough that you can create a branch for each
               feature you add.  Merging is high-quality enough that
               you can merge back and forth between branches
               repeatedly without the problems that CVS (and
               Subversion?) has with forgetting that some changes have
               already been merged.
             * Git has many useful tools, including a number of useful
               GUI tools.
             * Git is under active development.  New, useful tools are
               being developed for it all the time.
             * Git has good documentation.

Aegis also has these properties, plus:

 * It ensures that the the checked in code will compile.

 * The regression tests that we have can (perhaps with very little
   modification) fit nicely into aegis' verification mechanism ...
   Aegis will ensure that new change sets pass all existing tests and
   that new tests are (at least to some extent) meaningful. 

*  It manages the peer reviewing of changesets.  Something which we've
   been doing, up till now, in a somewhat ad hoc way with the savannah
   patch tracker.

On the down side, there's not (yet) savannah support for Aegis.
     In fact, it makes
     the history *easier* to follow, because Git will break the
     history into atomic change sets 

I don't see how it can do that, except by assuming that each file is a
separate change-set.  I'm not sure that makes things easier to follow.


PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See or any PGP keyserver for public key.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]