[webkit-dev] Should we consider switching to git over svn?

[Oliver Hunt]

On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:

>
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
>> The average user uses update-webkit + some manual work, svn-create- 
>> patch, svn-apply-patch
>> Behind the scenes these do, svn up, svn diff + some magic, patch +  
>> magic
>
> Yup
>
>> Under git they would be
>> git fetch && git rebase origin/master + unfortunately some manual  
>> work (described below)
>> git diff master + some magic
>> patch + magic
>
> That "unfortuantely some manual work" is currently a huge wrench in  
> my cog.
the unforunately some manual work is the same manual work as would be  
needed for an svn merge -- i had forgotten about merge conflicts in  
svn, because i primarily get conflicts in changelogs so they didn't  
register initially.  I remember conflicts in git as i have spent a  
reasonable amount  of the past few weeks dealing with merge conflicts  
from merging branches together.

> The svn process is very linear, and a "one time" thing per update.   
> I just went through the process of being asked to do multi-step  
> merges on the same file spread out over multiple git commits, and  
> having git-mergetool bring up a blank document in each half of the  
> diff utility window.
>
> This is not friendly.

Ah yes, I think you need to run git-mergetool from the root of your  
repository, that is definitely a bad thing though.

Although i'm not sure why would be ending up with multiple merges for  
a single patch.

>
>> What makes this simple, single branch development more tricky with  
>> git is that git has the idea of local history, so it is necessary  
>> to commit locally prior to updating, and then extra work is needed  
>> if you want to retain a single patch for the final commit.  We  
>> would need to work out what the standard workflow should be in  
>> this mode.
>
> Thats what I'm requesting we do - and make it as clear, simple, and  
> "bulletproof" as our current svn process.  (note - not claiming the  
> current svn process *is* bulletproof, just that the git process be  
> *as* bulletproof)
Agreed
>
>> So it is more difficult when doing simple single branch  
>> development, but not insurmountably so, it gets more copmlicated  
>> once you start dealing with many branches but that's not something  
>> you can do with svn even if you wanted to.
>
> Watching Mark Rowe periodically struggle to get potential new  
> developers up to speed with the current SVN procedure makes this  
> statement worrisome to me.  IMHO, making it "more difficult, but  
> not insurmountably so" translates to "turn away even more people  
> who are casually interested in the project but might end up being  
> serious contributers if they're able to get their feet sufficiently  
> wet"

That does worry me as well, otoh as i say the basics are not overly  
difficult, and with decent scripts backing everything i don't see it  
being too problematic, but then i've never had a problem with cvs or  
svn, but did have some issues with git.  Although i would argue that  
was due to the mismatch in my knowledge of svns vs. git's behaviour.

--Oliver
>
> ~Brady
>