Re: ready to branch 1.3 off?

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Robert James Clay <..hidden..> wrote:
> John,
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:10 PM, John Locke wrote:
>
>> But I think there should be an official LSMB project on github,
>
>     Whatever the source of the initial contents of the repository,
> why not host such an 'official" git repository at SourceForge along
> with the rest of the project?   Can also do multiple respositories in
> the same project, if needed...
>

There's another decision which needs to be made regarding dcvs and the project.

First, I do hear a lot of people complain about both SVN and git and
often for different reasons.  I am personally unhappy with svn because
I have seen it do things no sane source code management solution
should ever do (skip updates on some files silently).  I think
offering Git as an official option is important.  In the past we have
endorsed Jeff's work in this area.  The major difficulty in this area
is that since Jeff is not on the core committee, this hasn't had the
imprimatur that it probably should have had.

Anyway on to the complaints:
1)  Hate Git because it puts a lot of scripts a lot of places.
2)  Distrust the decentralized development model
3)  SVN sucks and sometimes silently skips updating some files.....
4)  Sourceforge's hosting of svn is slow.

Also, I am a little bit concerned about the possibilities of getting a
dcvs-based solution wrong.  Since everything is disconnected, with
lots of different branches, it seems like it may be very easy to screw
something up, like issue a release from the wrong branch.  At the same
time, I think that this is a powerful solution regarding branching,
custom patch management, and the like.  In essence git and friends
seem to be extremely helpful tools and since they can pull from svn, I
don't see why a git repo would have to exclude the use of svn as well.

I am going to make the following proposal then for a hybrid model:

I am therefore going to suggest a solution:

1)  Keep SVN as the master repository for the purpose of official
project releases.  Keep commit access fairly strongly restricted.
2)  Add an official Git repository with core management regarding
pushing patch sets into svn.  This could be done in one of a few ways.
3)  Currently we already accept patches against either repo.  This
wouldn't change.

Am I crazy?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers