[webkit-dev] Moving to Git?

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jochen Eisinger <jochen at chromium.org>
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
>>
>> The simplicity. In git, I have to worry about things like committing
>> local changes before rebasing to master, or stashing, etc... In svn, all I
>> have to do is to run "svn up".
>>
>
> I wonder, do you really run svn up that much? I'd expect that this breaks
> your checkout every now and then if some dependencies change. I usually run
> update-webkit, which should hide the rebasing actions from you
>

I do that at least 5-6 times a day if not more.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM, John Yani <vanuan at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't think so. I like the simplicity of svn. While git client works
> > great, I always get frustrated by the complexity of having multiple
> branches
> > locally and the amount of work required to merge the remote changes on
> the
> > branch I'm working on.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> # fetch from origin master and merge into the current branch
> git pull origin master


Huh? That's not equivalent to svn up at all.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Joe Mason <jmason at rim.com> wrote:
>
> What Ryosuke seems to be complaining about is that if you have changes to
> your working copy, "svn up" will automatically merge them, which could lead
> to conflicts you have to untangle, while "git pull --rebase" will give an
> error telling you you must commit or stash them first.  So the real
> equivalent to "svn up" is "git stash && git pull --rebase origin/master &&
> git stash pop".  And "git stash pop" will start pretty much the same
> merging process as svn's if there are conflicts.
>

Right. But I can't bother to type that much myself. Maybe my complain will
go away if someone had implemented webkit-patch up that does this
automatically.

This is only slightly more complicated


I'd say astoundingly more complicated because of

and has the benefit that if something goes wrong, your changes remain
> explicitly in the git stash, where you can get at them with commands like
> "git stash show" or "git stash branch"



> whereas unless svn has features I don't know about, if "svn up" does
> unexpected things the only record of your changes is a series of conflict
> markers you'll need to resolve.
>

But I can just run svn diff to create a backup if I really wanted to save
the original change. But I've never had a trouble merging things so it's
hard for me to tell if that's really useful or not.

And you can always make a "git-up" script that does "git stash && git pull
> --rebase origin/master && git stash pop", so the command you type won't
> even be any longer than "svn up", but will give you more safety.
>

That'll certainly be an improvement. I still dislike git hashes though. If
someone implements such a script in webkit-patch and we can automatically
assign svn-revision like numbers to all commits, I can be convinced to use
git.

- Ryosuke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20120308/2a24a774/attachment.html>