move to git.
Locked
12345678
12345678
 
|
That raises another irritating thing about the JIRA SVN workflow vs GIT
pull requests. If you look at the contributor graph on GitHub for OFBiz you will see that it currently has only 3 contributors. Foremost this is because the project committers have mostly not configured their Apache addresses into their GitHub accounts. Secondly, however, it is caused by the fact that all JIRA committed patches will show the name of the person who merged the patch rather than its original author. https://github.com/apache/ofbiz/graphs/contributors We can make up stories about why this is desirable but I think any honest assessment would conclude that it is an inconvenience at best and a hazard at worst. Eventually if these dots are not connected the origins of some OFBiz code could become as mysterious as the early CVS commits. With the GIT pull request workflow we would not only know who wrote the code but would still know who performed the merge. We could also sign the commits so that their origin is cryptographically confirmed. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gil Portenseigne" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: move to git. > Yes, but these are commiters contributions, i mean non-commiters one should go > thru jira. |
|
|
That, Ean, says more about github than SVN. See
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/users/ofbiz and https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz showing a totally different story. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Ean Schuessler <[hidden email]> wrote: > That raises another irritating thing about the JIRA SVN workflow vs GIT > pull requests. > > If you look at the contributor graph on GitHub for OFBiz you will see > that it currently has only 3 contributors. Foremost this is because the > project committers have mostly not configured their Apache addresses into > their GitHub accounts. Secondly, however, it is caused by the fact that > all JIRA committed patches will show the name of the person who merged > the patch rather than its original author. > > https://github.com/apache/ofbiz/graphs/contributors > > We can make up stories about why this is desirable but I think any honest > assessment would conclude that it is an inconvenience at best and a hazard > at worst. Eventually if these dots are not connected the origins of some > OFBiz code could become as mysterious as the early CVS commits. With the > GIT pull request workflow we would not only know who wrote the code but > would still know who performed the merge. We could also sign the commits > so that their origin is cryptographically confirmed. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gil Portenseigne" <[hidden email]> > > Subject: Re: move to git. > > > Yes, but these are commiters contributions, i mean non-commiters one > should go > > thru jira. > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ean Schuessler
Tracking the original contributor is an important point. The nice thing about git is that every commit has a UUID so even as that commit is pulled from one repository to another the contributor and other details can be tracked. In SVN as things go from one repo to another this is lost (unless it's something like a full repository import). -David > On 22 Apr 2015, at 10:31, Ean Schuessler <[hidden email]> wrote: > > That raises another irritating thing about the JIRA SVN workflow vs GIT > pull requests. > > If you look at the contributor graph on GitHub for OFBiz you will see > that it currently has only 3 contributors. Foremost this is because the > project committers have mostly not configured their Apache addresses into > their GitHub accounts. Secondly, however, it is caused by the fact that > all JIRA committed patches will show the name of the person who merged > the patch rather than its original author. > > https://github.com/apache/ofbiz/graphs/contributors > > We can make up stories about why this is desirable but I think any honest > assessment would conclude that it is an inconvenience at best and a hazard > at worst. Eventually if these dots are not connected the origins of some > OFBiz code could become as mysterious as the early CVS commits. With the > GIT pull request workflow we would not only know who wrote the code but > would still know who performed the merge. We could also sign the commits > so that their origin is cryptographically confirmed. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gil Portenseigne" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: move to git. > >> Yes, but these are commiters contributions, i mean non-commiters one should go >> thru jira. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
> From: "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: move to git. > > That, Ean, says more about github than SVN. See > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/users/ofbiz and > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz showing a totally different > story. How do I see the people who submitted patches via JIRA? |
|
|
By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit
report. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Ean Schuessler <[hidden email]> wrote: > > From: "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> > > Subject: Re: move to git. > > > > That, Ean, says more about github than SVN. See > > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/users/ofbiz and > > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz showing a totally different > > story. > > How do I see the people who submitted patches via JIRA? > |
|
|
On 04/22/2015 01:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit > report. But that's not reflected in the links you provided, or users aren't getting mentioned. With the git workflow, whoever created the commit will *definately* be recorded, it doesn't require some free-form text message, that may or may not be parsed correctly. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
> From: "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: move to git. > By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit > report. But that is not reflected in your referenced visualization: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/users/ofbiz I think it would be easier if you simply concede that the current process does not let "svn blame" report the actual authors for patch lines. Here is a simple enough question, "which non-committer has submitted the most code to OFBiz and what was the distribution of their changes amongst the various OFBiz components?" |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
It occasionally happens that committers don't reference the contributors.
But that is seldom. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 04/22/2015 01:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit >> report. >> > > But that's not reflected in the links you provided, or users aren't > getting mentioned. With the git workflow, whoever created the commit will > *definately* be recorded, it doesn't require some free-form text message, > that may or may not be parsed correctly. > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
Github shows the committers as contributors. The links I provided just
shows a better overview of those contributors. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 04/22/2015 01:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit >> report. >> > > But that's not reflected in the links you provided, or users aren't > getting mentioned. With the git workflow, whoever created the commit will > *definately* be recorded, it doesn't require some free-form text message, > that may or may not be parsed correctly. > > |
|
|
The links you provide only show developers who have write access to
svn. Git(not just github, let's not conflate anything) keeps track of more than that. If there was someone who had forked a repo, comitted something on their local desktop, then pushed to a public server, and then someone on the offiicially sanctioned ofbiz git repo pulled from this other source, then the original committor will now show as a contributor. And, besides, that isn't the point. The links you provided do *not* show anyone from jira. Full stop. They *only* show people who have write access to svn. Full stop. In the past, ofbiz made a decision to move to apache.org. When this happened, we had to relicense the entire project from GPL to Apache 2.0. This required finding all current and past SVN contributors, and asking their permission. Then, all commit messages were scrubbed, and if some user was mentioned in passing, they had to then be tracked down and ask their permission as well. The links you provide still do not show these additional patch suppliers, and would not have helped. If someone creates an issue in jira, then someone *else* uploads a file and attaches a patch, it is this someone else that is the owner of the code. Show me how you can track that down. On 04/22/2015 03:49 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Github shows the committers as contributors. The links I provided just > shows a better overview of those contributors. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 04/22/2015 01:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> >>> By committers referencing the contributors to the JIRA issue in the commit >>> report. >>> >> But that's not reflected in the links you provided, or users aren't >> getting mentioned. With the git workflow, whoever created the commit will >> *definately* be recorded, it doesn't require some free-form text message, >> that may or may not be parsed correctly. >> >> |
|
|
On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When this happened, we had to relicense the entire project from GPL to Apache 2.0. Grrrrr.... It was not GPL! :-) Jacopo |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
Indeed, let's not amalgamate everything and keep the discussion clean. The
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz does show information about the jira issue (including the contributor, if done correctly). Just click on the blue i icon to the right of the comment excerpt. You'll see a modal window appearing with more info. Take as an example the commit done on April 18th starting with comment: 'A patch from Pierre Smits...' Thank you for sharing insights in how Git could work for this project. I appreciate it. Can you provide links to examples of an Apache project using Git that shows a contribution from a non-privileged contributor as you describe? It would surely help understanding the described visibility and help this community to make a sound decision when all has been said. Quoting: which non-committer has submitted the most code to OFBiz and what was the distribution of their changes amongst the various OFBiz components? I would love to see that too. Maybe our PMC chair can clarify and comment on that? Please remember: if anyone feels that this discussion has reached a saturation point (all viewpoints and concerns presented) and a sense of consensus needs to be established, just call a vote. The outcome will dictate the direction. To me this seems a procedural issue, not a code change. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-5
On 04/22/2015 06:13 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> When this happened, we had to relicense the entire project from GPL to Apache 2.0. > Grrrrr.... It was not GPL! :-) It was something tho; I may be wrong on that, I didn't actually look it up. I do recall that switching was quite the ordeal. |
|
|
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:49, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > On 04/22/2015 06:13 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Adam Heath <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> When this happened, we had to relicense the entire project from GPL to Apache 2.0. >> Grrrrr.... It was not GPL! :-) > > It was something tho; I may be wrong on that, I didn't actually look it up. I do recall that switching was quite the ordeal. It was MIT, but that wasn't the real issue with all the CLAs... the ASF requires them but they are not generally required for other users of the Apache 2 license. This was a pain... took months of effort. Even under the ASF we don't know who all code has come from, there is no way to get a list from SVN or any other tool... not even from Jira (though that's closer, but we only have associations between those who opened issues or attached a patch or those sorts of activities, doesn't always match exactly which patch gets committed, etc... AND not all commits get linked back to the Jira issues... oh and mentioning a name in a commit, pretty useless from a reporting perspective... parsing difficulties, data cleanliness/consistency issues... nightmare). -David |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:14, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Indeed, let's not amalgamate everything and keep the discussion clean. The > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz does show information about the > jira issue (including the contributor, if done correctly). Just click on > the blue i icon to the right of the comment excerpt. You'll see a modal > window appearing with more info. Take as an example the commit done on > April 18th starting with comment: 'A patch from Pierre Smits...' > > Thank you for sharing insights in how Git could work for this project. I > appreciate it. > > Can you provide links to examples of an Apache project using Git that shows > a contribution from a non-privileged contributor as you describe? It would > surely help understanding the described visibility and help this community > to make a sound decision when all has been said. Not an ASF project, but here is an example of what that can look like (and demonstrating the shameful lack of community in Moqui Framework). In this case I am the only person with push/write permission to this git repository, so all others came through pull requests after they committed to their own fork repositories: https://github.com/moqui/moqui/graphs/contributors > Quoting: > > which non-committer has submitted the most code to OFBiz and what was the > distribution of their changes amongst the various OFBiz components? > > > I would love to see that too. Maybe our PMC chair can clarify and comment > on that? The PMC chair doesn't have access to any magic tools that are unavailable to the rest of us... this is an unknown (even if we can get approximate data from Jira and SVN). -David |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
https://github.com/ansible/ansible/graphs/contributors
mpdehaan used to be *the* ansible guy. It was his original creation. He has since moved on, but 1000 contributors that have actual code inside the primary repository. Also look at https://github.com/ansible/ansible/graphs/contributors?from=2012-11-23&to=2013-05-03&type=c, which shows how you can have a draggable window; but having a nice gui is not what this sub-discussion is about. On 04/22/2015 06:14 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Indeed, let's not amalgamate everything and keep the discussion clean. The > https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/graph/ofbiz does show information about the > jira issue (including the contributor, if done correctly). Just click on > the blue i icon to the right of the comment excerpt. You'll see a modal > window appearing with more info. Take as an example the commit done on > April 18th starting with comment: 'A patch from Pierre Smits...' > > Thank you for sharing insights in how Git could work for this project. I > appreciate it. > > Can you provide links to examples of an Apache project using Git that shows > a contribution from a non-privileged contributor as you describe? It would > surely help understanding the described visibility and help this community > to make a sound decision when all has been said. > > Quoting: > > which non-committer has submitted the most code to OFBiz and what was the > distribution of their changes amongst the various OFBiz components? > > > I would love to see that too. Maybe our PMC chair can clarify and comment > on that? > > Please remember: if anyone feels that this discussion has reached a > saturation point (all viewpoints and concerns presented) and a sense of > consensus needs to be established, just call a vote. The outcome will > dictate the direction. To me this seems a procedural issue, not a code > change. > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
"I am thoroughly familiar with Git."
"Git always screws things up." These two statements are complete contradictions. Outcomes in git only appear strange while you're still unfamiliar with it. I've been using the git-svn bridge to commit to OFBiz for about 4 years and using a git repo on my current project for the last 18 months or so. Strange occurrences stopped happening for me after a couple of months and generally stopped once all developers either stopped using git client UIs that used settings they didn't understand or they started using the command line (which is exceedingly simple for basic workflows). The value of feature branches and pull requests over patches cannot be overstated IMO. The ability to easily multi-task on features, review pull requests, keep a real commit history for contributed features, to collaborate outside of the main repo puts git miles ahead of svn for collaborative incremental software development. Regards Scott On 20 April 2015 at 22:19, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > I am thoroughly familiar with Git. I've used it on on three projects, and > that is why I don't like it. > > I have a far easier time merging branches with Subversion. Git always > screws things up. > > I don't need to be convinced of anything. I have my experience and my > opinion. But still, I'm not opposed to switching to Git. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 4/20/2015 11:08 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > >> One of the most difficult and challenging issue with branches is _merging_ >> them. Git is a tool that is far more advanced in its feature set in that >> area. >> >> It seems some of the opinions expressed against git are due to >> unfamiliarity. The only way to be convinced is to try it on an advanced >> level as i don't think an email thread would be enough for convincing >> anyone of the merits. >> >> My 2 cents >> >> Taher Alkhateeb >> On Apr 20, 2015 12:54 PM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> If we only want GIT for multiple local development branches, then we are >>> doing for the wrong reasons. SVN doesn't hinder you in doing that today. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Pierre Smits >>> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>> Services and Retail & Trade >>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Like Adrian and mostly for the same reasons, I don't believe we need >>>> Git. >>>> >>>> But there is one other major reason which has already been discussed in >>>> the other common ASF MLs. As Taher exulted, it's possible to create >>>> >>> local >>> >>>> branches. So people are able to do a lot of work alone without >>>> exchanging >>>> before committing or submitting. It will certainly not help to have this >>>> possibility. Remember our recent discussion on the lack or core commits >>>> reviews. With Git you end with commits bursts or big patches and it's >>>> >>> then >>> >>>> hard to review and too late to share ideas. >>>> >>>> So unlike Adrian, I'm even strongly against it. I will not hesitate to >>>> >>> use >>> >>>> a -1 if necessary! >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 20/04/2015 09:53, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>> >>>> I don't agree that "all major contributors are using git." >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I find Git to be an overly complicated solution to a simple >>>>> problem. It frequently does bizarre things that no one understands, and >>>>> >>>> you >>> >>>> are left with things being mysteriously reverted for unknown reasons. >>>>> >>>>> This isn't a -1 vote though. I'm just making it clear that I will be >>>>> dragged kicking and screaming into using it. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 4/20/2015 5:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to >>>>>> >>>>> git >>> >>>> for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major >>>>>> contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, >>>>>> git allows for better branching and merging. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Hans >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> |
|
|
They are contradictions because they have been taken out of context.
I was responding to the suggestion that I don't like Git because I have never used it. I have used it on three projects, and there have been problems - even when "Git experts" use it. So, my dislike is based on my experiences with Git, not on my lack of experience with it. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 4/23/2015 9:28 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > "I am thoroughly familiar with Git." > "Git always screws things up." > > These two statements are complete contradictions. Outcomes in git only > appear strange while you're still unfamiliar with it. > > I've been using the git-svn bridge to commit to OFBiz for about 4 years and > using a git repo on my current project for the last 18 months or so. > Strange occurrences stopped happening for me after a couple of months and > generally stopped once all developers either stopped using git client UIs > that used settings they didn't understand or they started using the command > line (which is exceedingly simple for basic workflows). > > The value of feature branches and pull requests over patches cannot be > overstated IMO. The ability to easily multi-task on features, review pull > requests, keep a real commit history for contributed features, to > collaborate outside of the main repo puts git miles ahead of svn for > collaborative incremental software development. > > Regards > Scott > > > On 20 April 2015 at 22:19, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> I am thoroughly familiar with Git. I've used it on on three projects, and >> that is why I don't like it. >> >> I have a far easier time merging branches with Subversion. Git always >> screws things up. >> >> I don't need to be convinced of anything. I have my experience and my >> opinion. But still, I'm not opposed to switching to Git. >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 4/20/2015 11:08 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >> >>> One of the most difficult and challenging issue with branches is _merging_ >>> them. Git is a tool that is far more advanced in its feature set in that >>> area. >>> >>> It seems some of the opinions expressed against git are due to >>> unfamiliarity. The only way to be convinced is to try it on an advanced >>> level as i don't think an email thread would be enough for convincing >>> anyone of the merits. >>> >>> My 2 cents >>> >>> Taher Alkhateeb >>> On Apr 20, 2015 12:54 PM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> If we only want GIT for multiple local development branches, then we are >>>> doing for the wrong reasons. SVN doesn't hinder you in doing that today. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Pierre Smits >>>> >>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Like Adrian and mostly for the same reasons, I don't believe we need >>>>> Git. >>>>> >>>>> But there is one other major reason which has already been discussed in >>>>> the other common ASF MLs. As Taher exulted, it's possible to create >>>>> >>>> local >>>> >>>>> branches. So people are able to do a lot of work alone without >>>>> exchanging >>>>> before committing or submitting. It will certainly not help to have this >>>>> possibility. Remember our recent discussion on the lack or core commits >>>>> reviews. With Git you end with commits bursts or big patches and it's >>>>> >>>> then >>>> >>>>> hard to review and too late to share ideas. >>>>> >>>>> So unlike Adrian, I'm even strongly against it. I will not hesitate to >>>>> >>>> use >>>> >>>>> a -1 if necessary! >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 20/04/2015 09:53, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree that "all major contributors are using git." >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I find Git to be an overly complicated solution to a simple >>>>>> problem. It frequently does bizarre things that no one understands, and >>>>>> >>>>> you >>>> >>>>> are left with things being mysteriously reverted for unknown reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn't a -1 vote though. I'm just making it clear that I will be >>>>>> dragged kicking and screaming into using it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/20/2015 5:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to >>>>>>> >>>>>> git >>>> >>>>> for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major >>>>>>> contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, >>>>>>> git allows for better branching and merging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> > |
|
|
I'm just saying my current project has been using it for 18 months and it's
been a long time now since we've "lost" any changes. This is 15-30 devs that were all new to git. In my experience most issues come from: - Reverting merge commits and picking the wrong mainline - Pushing to the wrong remote branch - Incorrectly handling conflicts - Trying to force pushes The most important thing is to stop when you mess something up and seek help. Trying to fix things on the remote repo without understanding what has gone wrong can make a bigger mess. On second thought I'm almost hesitant to say git would be a good idea for OFBiz because we have so many committers that would have access to the master branch without an adequate level of git experience. I can imagine the mess someone might make trying to rewrite history on the remote repo. Regardless, I highly recommend git-svn for basic local development or forking the git mirror if you want to go deeper. Regards Scott On 23 April 2015 at 20:59, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > They are contradictions because they have been taken out of context. > > I was responding to the suggestion that I don't like Git because I have > never used it. I have used it on three projects, and there have been > problems - even when "Git experts" use it. So, my dislike is based on my > experiences with Git, not on my lack of experience with it. > > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 4/23/2015 9:28 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> "I am thoroughly familiar with Git." >> "Git always screws things up." >> >> These two statements are complete contradictions. Outcomes in git only >> appear strange while you're still unfamiliar with it. >> >> I've been using the git-svn bridge to commit to OFBiz for about 4 years >> and >> using a git repo on my current project for the last 18 months or so. >> Strange occurrences stopped happening for me after a couple of months and >> generally stopped once all developers either stopped using git client UIs >> that used settings they didn't understand or they started using the >> command >> line (which is exceedingly simple for basic workflows). >> >> The value of feature branches and pull requests over patches cannot be >> overstated IMO. The ability to easily multi-task on features, review pull >> requests, keep a real commit history for contributed features, to >> collaborate outside of the main repo puts git miles ahead of svn for >> collaborative incremental software development. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> On 20 April 2015 at 22:19, Adrian Crum < >> [hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> I am thoroughly familiar with Git. I've used it on on three projects, and >>> that is why I don't like it. >>> >>> I have a far easier time merging branches with Subversion. Git always >>> screws things up. >>> >>> I don't need to be convinced of anything. I have my experience and my >>> opinion. But still, I'm not opposed to switching to Git. >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 4/20/2015 11:08 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>> >>> One of the most difficult and challenging issue with branches is >>>> _merging_ >>>> them. Git is a tool that is far more advanced in its feature set in that >>>> area. >>>> >>>> It seems some of the opinions expressed against git are due to >>>> unfamiliarity. The only way to be convinced is to try it on an advanced >>>> level as i don't think an email thread would be enough for convincing >>>> anyone of the merits. >>>> >>>> My 2 cents >>>> >>>> Taher Alkhateeb >>>> On Apr 20, 2015 12:54 PM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If we only want GIT for multiple local development branches, then we >>>> are >>>> >>>>> doing for the wrong reasons. SVN doesn't hinder you in doing that >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Like Adrian and mostly for the same reasons, I don't believe we need >>>>> >>>>>> Git. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there is one other major reason which has already been discussed >>>>>> in >>>>>> the other common ASF MLs. As Taher exulted, it's possible to create >>>>>> >>>>>> local >>>>> >>>>> branches. So people are able to do a lot of work alone without >>>>>> exchanging >>>>>> before committing or submitting. It will certainly not help to have >>>>>> this >>>>>> possibility. Remember our recent discussion on the lack or core >>>>>> commits >>>>>> reviews. With Git you end with commits bursts or big patches and it's >>>>>> >>>>>> then >>>>> >>>>> hard to review and too late to share ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> So unlike Adrian, I'm even strongly against it. I will not hesitate to >>>>>> >>>>>> use >>>>> >>>>> a -1 if necessary! >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 20/04/2015 09:53, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't agree that "all major contributors are using git." >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I find Git to be an overly complicated solution to a >>>>>>> simple >>>>>>> problem. It frequently does bizarre things that no one understands, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> are left with things being mysteriously reverted for unknown reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This isn't a -1 vote though. I'm just making it clear that I will be >>>>>>> dragged kicking and screaming into using it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/20/2015 5:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> git >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major >>>>>> >>>>>>> contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, >>>>>>>> git allows for better branching and merging. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> |
|
|
> I can imagine
> the mess someone might make trying to rewrite history on the remote repo. That is what I am imagining also. When/if the vote occurs to make the change, I will vote +0 - because I don't like using Git, but I don't want to stand in the way of others using it. I'm looking forward to the benefits of the switch, but at the same time I will most likely be the one who makes a mess of things in the main repo. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 4/23/2015 10:22 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I'm just saying my current project has been using it for 18 months and it's > been a long time now since we've "lost" any changes. This is 15-30 devs > that were all new to git. > > In my experience most issues come from: > - Reverting merge commits and picking the wrong mainline > - Pushing to the wrong remote branch > - Incorrectly handling conflicts > - Trying to force pushes > > The most important thing is to stop when you mess something up and seek > help. Trying to fix things on the remote repo without understanding what > has gone wrong can make a bigger mess. > > On second thought I'm almost hesitant to say git would be a good idea for > OFBiz because we have so many committers that would have access to the > master branch without an adequate level of git experience. I can imagine > the mess someone might make trying to rewrite history on the remote repo. > > Regardless, I highly recommend git-svn for basic local development > or forking the git mirror if you want to go deeper. > > Regards > Scott > > On 23 April 2015 at 20:59, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> They are contradictions because they have been taken out of context. >> >> I was responding to the suggestion that I don't like Git because I have >> never used it. I have used it on three projects, and there have been >> problems - even when "Git experts" use it. So, my dislike is based on my >> experiences with Git, not on my lack of experience with it. >> >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 4/23/2015 9:28 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> "I am thoroughly familiar with Git." >>> "Git always screws things up." >>> >>> These two statements are complete contradictions. Outcomes in git only >>> appear strange while you're still unfamiliar with it. >>> >>> I've been using the git-svn bridge to commit to OFBiz for about 4 years >>> and >>> using a git repo on my current project for the last 18 months or so. >>> Strange occurrences stopped happening for me after a couple of months and >>> generally stopped once all developers either stopped using git client UIs >>> that used settings they didn't understand or they started using the >>> command >>> line (which is exceedingly simple for basic workflows). >>> >>> The value of feature branches and pull requests over patches cannot be >>> overstated IMO. The ability to easily multi-task on features, review pull >>> requests, keep a real commit history for contributed features, to >>> collaborate outside of the main repo puts git miles ahead of svn for >>> collaborative incremental software development. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> On 20 April 2015 at 22:19, Adrian Crum < >>> [hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I am thoroughly familiar with Git. I've used it on on three projects, and >>>> that is why I don't like it. >>>> >>>> I have a far easier time merging branches with Subversion. Git always >>>> screws things up. >>>> >>>> I don't need to be convinced of anything. I have my experience and my >>>> opinion. But still, I'm not opposed to switching to Git. >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 4/20/2015 11:08 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>> >>>> One of the most difficult and challenging issue with branches is >>>>> _merging_ >>>>> them. Git is a tool that is far more advanced in its feature set in that >>>>> area. >>>>> >>>>> It seems some of the opinions expressed against git are due to >>>>> unfamiliarity. The only way to be convinced is to try it on an advanced >>>>> level as i don't think an email thread would be enough for convincing >>>>> anyone of the merits. >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cents >>>>> >>>>> Taher Alkhateeb >>>>> On Apr 20, 2015 12:54 PM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we only want GIT for multiple local development branches, then we >>>>> are >>>>> >>>>>> doing for the wrong reasons. SVN doesn't hinder you in doing that >>>>>> today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>> >>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Like Adrian and mostly for the same reasons, I don't believe we need >>>>>> >>>>>>> Git. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But there is one other major reason which has already been discussed >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the other common ASF MLs. As Taher exulted, it's possible to create >>>>>>> >>>>>>> local >>>>>> >>>>>> branches. So people are able to do a lot of work alone without >>>>>>> exchanging >>>>>>> before committing or submitting. It will certainly not help to have >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> possibility. Remember our recent discussion on the lack or core >>>>>>> commits >>>>>>> reviews. With Git you end with commits bursts or big patches and it's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then >>>>>> >>>>>> hard to review and too late to share ideas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So unlike Adrian, I'm even strongly against it. I will not hesitate to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> use >>>>>> >>>>>> a -1 if necessary! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 20/04/2015 09:53, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't agree that "all major contributors are using git." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I find Git to be an overly complicated solution to a >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>> problem. It frequently does bizarre things that no one understands, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> are left with things being mysteriously reverted for unknown reasons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This isn't a -1 vote though. I'm just making it clear that I will be >>>>>>>> dragged kicking and screaming into using it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/20/2015 5:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> git >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, >>>>>>>>> git allows for better branching and merging. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |