[Koha-devel] Re: distributed VCS, some thoughts.

[Kyle Hall]

Thanks for the extra information. Just on a technical note, let's say I
e-mail you and say 'pull the changes I've made from my local repository into
yours', this means that I have to have my work pc publicly available. I
assume that git has a certain port it works on. Is that correct?

Kyle

On 3/19/07, Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren at smiths-aerospace.com> wrote:
>
> Well, it is hard to be definitive without a clue of your current
> development methodologies, but I would speculate that it will take
> somewhere from little more to a lot less time than CVS/SVN with multiple
> writers (note that you can still have multiple writers with git, it just
> is not generally useful since everybody has their own copy of the
> repository).
>
> If the code in CVS never gets messed up because of multiple people
> committing incompatible changes, it will take minimal extra time for
> everybody upstream to pull changes.
>
> On the other hand, if ever you get a mess due to multiple people
> committing incompatible stuff in CVS, you've just saved every bit of
> time that the extra pulling cost.  I suspect this has already happened
> at least once. :-/
>
> I tried to outline a "pull" scenario in a previous email to illustrate
> that it is NOT painful.  Doing a pull is a single command you run that
> takes seconds to run and you do it occasionally (on demand, when you
> feel like it, once a day, once a week, whatever makes sense).  It is the
> same level of effort as doing a "svn update".  In addition, if you use
> local source control (maintaining a local copy of the cvs/svn repository
> to track local changes or using RCS locally) *which all developers
> should do*, git is a huge improvement.
>
> All of the developers will benefit (save time) with git, so the net time
> savings equation is positive, regardless.  There is a learning curve to
> climb, but it isn't very steep and the rewards are pretty good.
> RCS - gets the job done but cannot share the changes
> CVS - gets the job done over the wire, allowing sharing (Pinto)
> SVN - puts a turbocharger in the Pinto (Pangra)
> git - everybody makes their own clone of the Lamborghini
>
> Reference pointers for the non-US residents (and youngsters ;-):
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar>
>
> Best regards,
> gvb
>
>
> Kyle Hall wrote:
> > I think everyone would agree that more checking of code is good. As long
> > as you and Paul and Josh are willing to put in a bit more time, I
> > imagine everyone will be all for it. I think the big question is *how
> > much* more time will it require from you guys. I think only the people
> > currently using git will be able to help us answer us.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> > On 3/16/07, *Chris Cormack* <chris at katipo.co.nz
> > <mailto:chris at katipo.co.nz>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Kyle Hall said:
> >      > Thank you for illuminating us on the ways of git ; )
> >      > It seems from you're description if there are lot's of Kyle's,
> >     that the
> >      > likes of Chris and Paul are in for more work that previously. I,
> >     on the
> >      > other hand, would be effected little.
> >      >
> >     Speaking as Chris
> >
> >     I don't think this is nessecarily a bad thing, a bit more checking
> as
> >     code comes in can save a bunch of time in the future. I guess what
> I'm
> >     saying is we should be doing something like this currently anyway,
> at
> >     least we should be sanity checking code as its committed. We wouldnt
> >     end up with dual implementation of the same feature, and some of the
> >     duplicate code we now have.
> >
> >     Chris
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Chris Cormack
> >     Programmer
> >     027 4500 789                                       Katipo
> >     Communications Ltd
> >     chris at katipo.co.nz
> >     <mailto:chris at katipo.co.nz
> >                                          www.katipo.co.nz
> >     <http://www.katipo.co.nz>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > IT Tech
> > Crawford County Federated Library System
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > CAUTION: This message was sent via the Public Internet and its
> > authenticity cannot be guaranteed.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
>
>


-- 
IT Tech
Crawford County Federated Library System
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20070319/66e569d9/attachment-0002.htm>