Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39311
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 88.198.8.16 cause and error)
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <641132640.20080725114622@marcus-boerger.de>
References: <40FEB6C9-9B66-4761-8B9C-0E70158D9962@wanderingknights.org> <d4ad84b50807250033r36f92879r74d0679026626f04@mail.gmail.com> <48898544.5080100@lerdorf.com> <A1337AF2-50A0-415E-B796-259AFC1B51AD@pooteeweet.org> <48898AB0.2030709@lerdorf.com> <FE5F57F4-0861-4CAB-A6E8-5F4DC711BE59@pooteeweet.org> <641132640.20080725114622@marcus-boerger.de>
Message-ID: <D593DBDF-3DEA-41D1-8DFD-EDBB88B66E2B@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:58:42 +0200
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] CVS to SVN Migration
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 25.07.2008, at 11:46, Marcus Boerger wrote:

>> I mean that if several people work on a changeset, that they still
>> might want to have a join central repo. Of course dvcs allows direct
>> exchange of patches as well, but it might still be a good idea to  
>> have
>> this central dvcs repo for historical reasons (lets say some stuff is
>> attempted, it is then abandonded and then picked up by someone else).
>
>> Also in terms of standardization I mean that even core developers can
>> get overwhelmed if they end up having to use git here, and hg there.
>> Then again we are still far away from having that many different
>> subprojects that need dvcs.
>
> I still cannot follow you. Do you even know about these tools?

I have not used any of them enough in practice to really know them well.

> If two parties use git or hg they are all fine. And everyone else is  
> fine
> too because they don' t have to learn dcms (btw, it's a distributed  
> cms
> as in code/configuraqtion management system:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_management_system). Anyway you  
> don't want
> to teach for example our documentation group to use git or hg.  
> Besides the
> fact thaqt there is no windows support for git they do not have the
> slightest use whatsoever for local branching. Though of course  
> anyone who
> is can safely start it's own perfectly working local one.


The point is:
- re2c experimental work used git
- mysqlnd used bzr

If I am developer X and for some reason I wanted to be involved in the  
re2c and the mysqlnd stuff, then I would need to know both (or atleast  
have a stable and easy to use bridge between the two).

This is why I am suggesting to "standardize" on a dvcs.

Also as others have made it more clear than I did in my initial post.  
A central place for people to merge their pages upstream makes it  
easier for people to join/examine the development (even if the  
original people have abonded the effort), without having to hunt down  
people to get their changesets. It might also be a convenient way to  
prepare before the final push into our central repo. So again it would  
be useful to have some default space for teams to place the "stable"  
state of their collaboration.

Finally Lars also mentioned that it might be a good idea to keep a  
mirror of svn because creating a copy of current svn in some dvcs is  
not going to be instant. this again suggests it would make sense for  
us to standardize on a specific dvcs or we have to start offering  
mirrors for all candidates.

Hope I am not too far off-base with these observations ..

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org