Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git

[Alex Ionescu]

Sounds like a bug in their migration/etc tool. MS has history going
back to 1984 and migrated everything to Git with zero problems.
At some point you should apply Ionescu's Razor: "Hmmm, a company of
150,000 developers and the most complicated and oldest series of
repositories in the world, was able to move to Git, including while
employing people who have been there for 30 years and used to other,
older systems.... but 30 open source developers can't make that change
because X". It follows from this that X is bullshit.
On the polluting history, again, just read commits that have [FOOBAR]
in them, and ignore others. Write a post-commit hook to rewrite/squash
them.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Zachary Gorden
<drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   The project that I worked with using git has history
> going back to 1988.
>  They certainly didn't start with git, nor did they necessarily start with
>  any revision control at the beginning, but after they migrated to it they
>  discovered the history problem.
>  On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> >  Am 16.02.2017 um 14:40 schrieb Alex Ionescu:
> > >   That being said, that type of "dirty
> > > history" only happens if you
> > >  heavily work with branches. That's not how reactos developers work -- we
> > >  don't open PRs and separate branches for every checkin.
> > >  These ALL sound like manufactured problems or poor/strange use of git. 
> >  That merge hell is easily reproducible using my default Git setup:
> >  1) Change something in your clone of master and do a "git commit".
> >  2) Let someone else change something in his clone of master and let him
> >  "git commit" and "git push" it.
> >  3) Try to "git push" your commit, won't work because of the commit of
> >  the other person.
> >  4) Do a "git pull" to fix the problem in 3) -> Bam! Git will do an
> >  automatic merge of both masters and pollute your history.
> >  You see, not a single extra branch is involved and yet we get two
> >  parallel streams of history.
> >  Rafal's mentioned "pull.rebase" option sounds promising, but can we
> >  enforce that somehow?
> >  - Colin
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Zachary Gorden]

It was not zero problems. Their entire creation of the git virtual file
system was to overcome git's limitations.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>   Sounds like a bug in their migration/etc tool. MS has
> history going
>  back to 1984 and migrated everything to Git with zero problems.
>  At some point you should apply Ionescu's Razor: "Hmmm, a company of
>  150,000 developers and the most complicated and oldest series of
>  repositories in the world, was able to move to Git, including while
>  employing people who have been there for 30 years and used to other,
>  older systems.... but 30 open source developers can't make that change
>  because X". It follows from this that X is bullshit.
>  On the polluting history, again, just read commits that have [FOOBAR]
>  in them, and ignore others. Write a post-commit hook to rewrite/squash
>  them.
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>  On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Zachary Gorden
>  <drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >   The project that I worked with using git has
> > history going back to 1988.
> >  They certainly didn't start with git, nor did they necessarily start with
> >  any revision control at the beginning, but after they migrated to it they
> >  discovered the history problem.
> >  On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 16.02.2017 um 14:40 schrieb Alex Ionescu:
> > > > That being said, that type of "dirty history" only happens if you
> > > > heavily work with branches. That's not how reactos developers work -- 
> we
> > > >   don't open PRs and separate branches for every
> > > > checkin.
> > > >  These ALL sound like manufactured problems or poor/strange use of git. 
> > >  That merge hell is easily reproducible using my default Git setup:
> > >  1) Change something in your clone of master and do a "git commit".
> > >  2) Let someone else change something in his clone of master and let him
> > >  "git commit" and "git push" it.
> > >  3) Try to "git push" your commit, won't work because of the commit of
> > >  the other person.
> > >  4) Do a "git pull" to fix the problem in 3) -> Bam! Git will do an
> > >  automatic merge of both masters and pollute your history.
> > >  You see, not a single extra branch is involved and yet we get two
> > >  parallel streams of history.
> > >  Rafal's mentioned "pull.rebase" option sounds promising, but can we
> > >  enforce that somehow?
> > >  - Colin
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Neo Love]

At the risk of flogging a dead horse,
I found the following assessment rather interesting:
https://svnvsgit.com/
Are we leaving old reliable SVN because some big-shots did?
What's the verdict?
WBR // L.