Microsoft switched to Git

[Colin Finck]

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-git-and-some-back...

I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers would
rather quit than switch. ;P

On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-
> git-and-some-back-story/
>
> I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.

Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations, and as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using a distributed system such as git or mercurial.

That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.

A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if you decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model it in other ways.

Ged.

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Quintana (gigaherz)
Sent: 15 February 2017 09:57
To: ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git

Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers would rather quit than switch. ;P

On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck <[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail] > wrote:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-git-and-some-back...

I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail] 
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Magnus Johnsson]

How many developers are we talking about here? :)

2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing the
> same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing projects
> using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
>
> Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations, and
> as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
>
> That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs
> being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
>
> A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if you
> decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model it
> in other ways.
>
> Ged.
>
> *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> Quintana (gigaherz)
> *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
>
> Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> would rather quit than switch. ;P
>
> On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
>
> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-
> git-and-some-back-story/
>
> I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Huw Campbell]

And how many developers would prefer to use git?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail]
wrote:
> How many developers are we talking about here? :)
>
> 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> >
> > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations, and
> > as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> >
> > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs
> > being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> >
> > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if you
> > decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model it
> > in other ways.
> >
> > Ged.
> >
> > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> >
> > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> >
> > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > it-and-some-back-story/
> >
> > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to be a
benefit for ALL of us. SVN works well enough meanwhile, even if passing
patch files around is rather 1990s.

On 15 February 2017 at 11:30, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail] wrote:
> How many developers are we talking about here? :)
>
> 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> >
> > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations, and
> > as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> >
> > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs
> > being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> >
> > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if you
> > decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model it
> > in other ways.
> >
> > Ged.
> >
> > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> >
> > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> >
> > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > it-and-some-back-story/
> >
> > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Magnus Johnsson]

Sure, but, do you know that its a fact? Has anyone checked recently? We are
talking vehemently against it here, right, not 'minor annoyance'?
Not calling anyone out here, would just love to hear some input on what
they want from the repository system. No pooflinging, promise.

2017-02-15 11:35 GMT+01:00 David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]:
> The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
> long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to be a
> benefit for ALL of us. SVN works well enough meanwhile, even if passing
> patch files around is rather 1990s.
>
> On 15 February 2017 at 11:30, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail] wrote:
> > How many developers are we talking about here? :)
> >
> > 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> > >
> > > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations,
> > > and as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> > >
> > > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs
> > > being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> > >
> > > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if
> > > you decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model
> > > it in other ways.
> > >
> > > Ged.
> > >
> > > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> > >
> > > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> > >
> > > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > > it-and-some-back-story/
> > >
> > > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

There was a talk last year, about the possibility of switching. At least
one long-time member said if we fully switched, they'd leave the project in
bad terms.

On 15 February 2017 at 11:41, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail] wrote:
> Sure, but, do you know that its a fact? Has anyone checked recently? We
> are talking vehemently against it here, right, not 'minor annoyance'?
> Not calling anyone out here, would just love to hear some input on what
> they want from the repository system. No pooflinging, promise.
>
> 2017-02-15 11:35 GMT+01:00 David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]:
> > The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
> > long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to be a
> > benefit for ALL of us. SVN works well enough meanwhile, even if passing
> > patch files around is rather 1990s.
> >
> > On 15 February 2017 at 11:30, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail]
> > wrote:
> > > How many developers are we talking about here? :)
> > >
> > > 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > > > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > > > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > > > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> > > >
> > > > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations,
> > > > and as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > > > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > > > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> > > >
> > > > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on devs
> > > > being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > > > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > > > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if
> > > > you decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model
> > > > it in other ways.
> > > >
> > > > Ged.
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > > > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > > > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> > > >
> > > > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > > > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> > > >
> > > > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > > > it-and-some-back-story/
> > > >
> > > > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

I meant to add, I don't know if their opinion has softened with regards to
Git, since that discusion.

On 15 February 2017 at 11:47, David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]
wrote:
> There was a talk last year, about the possibility of switching. At least
> one long-time member said if we fully switched, they'd leave the project in
> bad terms.
>
> On 15 February 2017 at 11:41, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail] wrote:
> > Sure, but, do you know that its a fact? Has anyone checked recently? We
> > are talking vehemently against it here, right, not 'minor annoyance'?
> > Not calling anyone out here, would just love to hear some input on what
> > they want from the repository system. No pooflinging, promise.
> >
> > 2017-02-15 11:35 GMT+01:00 David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]
> > :
> > > The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
> > > long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to be a
> > > benefit for ALL of us. SVN works well enough meanwhile, even if passing
> > > patch files around is rather 1990s.
> > >
> > > On 15 February 2017 at 11:30, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > > > How many developers are we talking about here? :)
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > > > > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > > > > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > > > > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations,
> > > > > and as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > > > > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > > > > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> > > > >
> > > > > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on
> > > > > devs being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > > > > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > > > > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if
> > > > > you decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model
> > > > > it in other ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ged.
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > > > > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > > > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > > > > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > > > > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > > > > it-and-some-back-story/
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Magnus Johnsson]

Wierd, any clue as to why?

There are some tools with git though that makes it operate with svn. Like,
as in that developers can use all the functions in git locally, but still
push/pull to SVN. Might be worth faffing about with and writing a guide? If
it works well and doesn't cause major headaches maybe people can use both.

I know the dual repositories are a bitch to maintain and not exactly bug
free, but it might be possible for people to use whichever tool fits them
best locally?
Actually, now I am itching to try it :).

I just feel like it would lower the entry point significantly for super
simple patches and maintenance. But then, I am not a reactos developer ;).

2017-02-15 11:47 GMT+01:00 David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]:
> There was a talk last year, about the possibility of switching. At least
> one long-time member said if we fully switched, they'd leave the project in
> bad terms.
>
> On 15 February 2017 at 11:41, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail] wrote:
> > Sure, but, do you know that its a fact? Has anyone checked recently? We
> > are talking vehemently against it here, right, not 'minor annoyance'?
> > Not calling anyone out here, would just love to hear some input on what
> > they want from the repository system. No pooflinging, promise.
> >
> > 2017-02-15 11:35 GMT+01:00 David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail]
> > :
> > > The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
> > > long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to be a
> > > benefit for ALL of us. SVN works well enough meanwhile, even if passing
> > > patch files around is rather 1990s.
> > >
> > > On 15 February 2017 at 11:30, Magnus Johnsson [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > > > How many developers are we talking about here? :)
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-15 11:19 GMT+01:00 Ged Murphy [e-mail]:
> > > > > Yeah, I had a meeting about this last week at work. We’re slowly doing
> > > > > the same, pushing all new projects to use tfs git, and give existing
> > > > > projects using vsts the option to convert if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Git is far better at managing developers working in remote locations,
> > > > > and as most of the software industry has already moved towards devs working
> > > > > remotely, it makes sense. There are very few big companies no longer using
> > > > > a distributed system such as git or mercurial.
> > > > >
> > > > > That fact that open source projects, which are inherently built on
> > > > > devs being remote, are still reluctant to move from a centralized to a
> > > > > distributed system seems archaic and self-detrimental. It’s a shame to hold
> > > > > the project back because a few devs are unwilling to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > A distributed system can do everything a centralized system can do if
> > > > > you decide to model it in that way, and so much more if you decide to model
> > > > > it in other ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ged.
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > > > > Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > > > *Sent:* 15 February 2017 09:57
> > > > > *To:* ReactOS Development List [e-mail]
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike us, Microsoft probably doesn't care if a few of the developers
> > > > > would rather quit than switch. ;P
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15 February 2017 at 10:40, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/bharry/2017/02/03/scaling-g
> > > > > it-and-some-back-story/
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't expect Microsoft to switch to Git sooner than us..
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Am 15.02.2017 um 11:35 schrieb David Quintana (gigaherz):
> The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost any
> long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it has to
> be a benefit for ALL of us.

Let's not forget:

- Part of the reasons developers had against Git may have been resolved
by now.
- Part of the problem may be that "Git is so different" to some devs,
but I think this can be resolved by a detailed Wiki article showing how
to do the same thing in SVN and Git. We already wrote such articles for
TortoiseSVN after all!
- And finally, we first need a plan for a Git move that doesn't suck. We
tried SubGit and it failed for us. Then there is the "Merge workflow",
which is supported very well by all tools, but creates a lot of parallel
history. The "Rebase workflow" is more like what SVN does (keeping a
linear history), but no idea how to enforce that with TortoiseGit.

I think if a team could look after these things and help moving each and
every developer towards Git, it may even be doable for us.

Cheers,

Colin

[Ged Murphy]

I think the easiest path is to switch to a centralized style model using git.
That is, we have a master copy (aka trunk) that gives the feel of our existing model. That would allow devs that prefer SVN to mostly continue working as before, and give the devs who want to use git in a more traditional way the ability to branch off and work in a git style manner, then sync their changes back into 'trunk'.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: 15 February 2017 10:53
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git

Am 15.02.2017 um 11:35 schrieb David Quintana (gigaherz):
> The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost 
> any long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it 
> has to be a benefit for ALL of us.

Let's not forget:

- Part of the reasons developers had against Git may have been resolved by now.
- Part of the problem may be that "Git is so different" to some devs, but I think this can be resolved by a detailed Wiki article showing how to do the same thing in SVN and Git. We already wrote such articles for TortoiseSVN after all!
- And finally, we first need a plan for a Git move that doesn't suck. We tried SubGit and it failed for us. Then there is the "Merge workflow", which is supported very well by all tools, but creates a lot of parallel history. The "Rebase workflow" is more like what SVN does (keeping a linear history), but no idea how to enforce that with TortoiseGit.

I think if a team could look after these things and help moving each and every developer towards Git, it may even be doable for us.

Cheers,

Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

My belief is that the best path would be:

Phase 0: This is how we are now. We have SVN master (trunk), and a
read-only git mirror, and a semi-updated github mirror for when a
contributor really wants to submit git PRs.

Phase 1: Switch to using Git with PRs for submitting patches (Github's PR
system is really really nice these days, but other solutions exist). Setup
a SVN mirror "bot" that creates one svn commit for each push/merge detected
in the master branch, and allows the buildbots to continue working as they
do now.

This would allow the existing svn-patch workflow to continue working, but
commits on svn wouldn't be allowed anymore. Developers are expected to at
least TRY to learn to use git (it's not that hard! I promise!).

Phase 2: We switch the buildbots and testbots to pull from git, enable
testbot access for git PRs (such as with a github bot that responds to
"@rosbot runtest" or similar). The SVN mirror remains, for archival
purposes, but git commits aren't merged so regularly. Release tags/branches
can still be published through SVN, for ease of access.

Phase 3: Everyone ends up agreeing that maintaining the svn mirror is no
longer worth the effort.

Of course, anything like this will only happen if the entire team agrees to
it.

On 15 February 2017 at 12:04, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
wrote:
> I think the easiest path is to switch to a centralized style model using
> git.
> That is, we have a master copy (aka trunk) that gives the feel of our
> existing model. That would allow devs that prefer SVN to mostly continue
> working as before, and give the devs who want to use git in a more
> traditional way the ability to branch off and work in a git style manner,
> then sync their changes back into 'trunk'.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Colin
> Finck
> Sent: 15 February 2017 10:53
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git
>
> Am 15.02.2017 um 11:35 schrieb David Quintana (gigaherz):
> > The number doesn't matter. The ReactOS project can't afford to lost
> > any long-time members. Git would be a benefit for all of us, but it
> > has to be a benefit for ALL of us.
>
> Let's not forget:
> Part of the reasons developers had against Git may have been resolved by
>
> now.
> Part of the problem may be that "Git is so different" to some devs, but
>
> I think this can be resolved by a detailed Wiki article showing how to do
> the same thing in SVN and Git. We already wrote such articles for
> TortoiseSVN after all!
> And finally, we first need a plan for a Git move that doesn't suck. We
>
> tried SubGit and it failed for us. Then there is the "Merge workflow",
> which is supported very well by all tools, but creates a lot of parallel
> history. The "Rebase workflow" is more like what SVN does (keeping a linear
> history), but no idea how to enforce that with TortoiseGit.
>
> I think if a team could look after these things and help moving each and
> every developer towards Git, it may even be doable for us.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Am 15.02.2017 um 12:18 schrieb David Quintana (gigaherz):
> Setup a SVN mirror "bot" that creates one svn commit for each push/merge
> detected in the master branch, and allows the buildbots to continue
> working as they do now.

Let's not have a Git repository with a parallel SVN mirror again. SubGit
tried to accomplish this as a professional solution and it failed for us.

There is no reason to take extra care of the Buildslaves at all.
The same infra people, who would do the switch to Git, could also change
the Buildslaves to use Git instead of SVN in the course of that.

- Colin

[Colin Finck]

Am 15.02.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Ged Murphy:
> That would allow devs that prefer SVN to mostly continue working as before, and give the devs who want to use git in a more traditional way the ability to branch off and work in a git style manner, then sync their changes back into 'trunk'.

Question is how is this "sync" going to happen?
When multiple developers work on Git "trunk" at the same time without
pulling before every commit, parallel history will be generated, which
is later merged automatically. This soon looks messy in Git history and
makes it hard to follow the chronologic stream of commits.

A strict rebase-only no-merge workflow would guarantee linear history
like before, but breaks many of the cool Git features. We may not even
be able to make use of GitHub Pull Requests..

Our situation is not really comparable to projects like Linux or WINE,
because they only have a single person sitting at the "trunk" to commit
patches, so parallel history cannot happen.

- Colin

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

Github now has a "merge as a single commit" feature included in it.

On 15 February 2017 at 12:28, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Am 15.02.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Ged Murphy:
> > That would allow devs that prefer SVN to mostly continue working as
>
> before, and give the devs who want to use git in a more traditional way the
> ability to branch off and work in a git style manner, then sync their
> changes back into 'trunk'.
>
> Question is how is this "sync" going to happen?
> When multiple developers work on Git "trunk" at the same time without
> pulling before every commit, parallel history will be generated, which
> is later merged automatically. This soon looks messy in Git history and
> makes it hard to follow the chronologic stream of commits.
>
> A strict rebase-only no-merge workflow would guarantee linear history
> like before, but breaks many of the cool Git features. We may not even
> be able to make use of GitHub Pull Requests..
>
> Our situation is not really comparable to projects like Linux or WINE,
> because they only have a single person sitting at the "trunk" to commit
> patches, so parallel history cannot happen.
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Giannis Adamopoulos]

I have worked with Github in the past using the rebase-only no-merge workflow and had no problem with GitHub Pull Requests.

ReactOS Development List [e-mail] wrote on Wed, February 15th, 2017, 12:28 PM:
> Am 15.02.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Ged Murphy:
> > That would allow devs that prefer SVN to mostly continue working as before, and give the devs who want to use git in a more traditional way the ability to branch off and work in a git style manner, then sync their changes back into 'trunk'.
>
> Question is how is this "sync" going to happen?
> When multiple developers work on Git "trunk" at the same time without
> pulling before every commit, parallel history will be generated, which
> is later merged automatically. This soon looks messy in Git history and
> makes it hard to follow the chronologic stream of commits.
>
> A strict rebase-only no-merge workflow would guarantee linear history
> like before, but breaks many of the cool Git features. We may not even
> be able to make use of GitHub Pull Requests..
>
> Our situation is not really comparable to projects like Linux or WINE,
> because they only have a single person sitting at the "trunk" to commit
> patches, so parallel history cannot happen.
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev