[Matroska-devel] moving from Subversion to Git & Github.com?
slhomme at matroska.org
Sun Dec 30 00:01:26 CET 2012
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Moritz Bunkus <moritz at bunkus.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Steve Lhomme <slhomme at matroska.org>
> > I also use git a lot and prefer its convenience over svn too. The issue
> > is that many people/project may link directly to the svn repository. All
> > these people will have to change their process for us.
> To be honest I've never heard of a single person really linking their
> processes to the Matroska Subversion repo. To the release tarballs,
> yes, but not the Subversion repo.
I'll have to check with VLC. They probably moved to git too so it shouldn't
be an issue for them. And that's basically the only one I had in mind. But
from experience once you start changing, you see some people appearing that
you had no idea of.
> > They may also be using svn:externals which has no equivalent in git.
> Not exactly true. I'm already hosting Git repos of both libebml and
> libmatroska in my own github account, and mkvtoolnix' git repo uses
> git's "submodules" feature for pulling those two in. Git's
> "submodules" work differently than Subversion's externals, but fir
> simple purposes it's comparable enough.
Yes, as long as each module is one repository, that's fine. On the other
hand, working like that doesn't offer strong coherence between a version of
one and a version of the other. For example when changing the spec XML file
there will be 2 or 3 different repositories to update for that single
> > One solution would be to automatically commit whatever is pushed on git
> > the old svn.
> Sure, we could set something up, however, I don't know if spending
> that much effort is worth it. Like I said above I don't know of a
> single person outside of our small circle actually using our
> Subversion at the moment, so such work would be for nothing.
Agreed, it's just better to know beforehand there is a solution if the
> Other projects have changed VCS in the past as well, and people simply
> adjusted. It's not that much of a hassle.
> > Why would we move to github rather than use SF's git then ?
> I don't have any hard facts against SF in this regard. I simply like
> github's services a lot (I've used them extensively). At the same time
> SF has always been rather slow to access for me -- pretty consistently
> for the past years. However, I haven't worked with SF's git feature
> yet. It's more of a gut feeling for me that choosing github.com would
> be the better option.
I use it for all my Android stuff and it's very well done. I have no idea
if the C/C++ community is strong there. We still need website hosting
though and I don't think it's possible on github. And I don't think it
would be fair to SF to use them as host but not for the source (their core
business). That said, VLC is using SF as a binary source but not the rest
of the features and they are quite happy with it...
> I would definitely not let SF do the conversion. I'd like to split up
> the huge Subversion trunk into individual projects. We could also drop
> certain projects that are completely unmaintained and outdated:
> - Perl.Parser: pretty incomplete, and there are actually modules on
> CPAN that do a better job
> - MatroskaPack: completely outdated, should be killed
OK, as long as the old SVN is there for reference, no big deal in killing
> Not sure about the others; I'd keep them for the time being. Meaning
> we would have ~ 16 new git repos to convert to (I'd do the work
> Kind regards,
> Matroska-devel mailing list
> Matroska-devel at lists.matroska.org
> Read Matroska-Devel on GMane:
Matroska association Chairman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Matroska-devel