|
| From: | Kyle Hall |
| Subject: | Re: [Koha-devel] Re: distributed VCS, some thoughts. |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:51:19 -0400 |
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* <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> 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
> address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden> 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.
>
> ______________________________________________________
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |