Re: [pcgen_developers] Re: [pcgen_ui_beta] UI sandboxes
- On 26.04.2011 13:31, Andrew wrote:
> My concerns from the Admin Side -I'm certainly not an expert on git, in fact, I am only climbing the
> 1) Does Hudson Support it?
> 2) Does JIRA Support it?
> 3) Do the popular coding tools support it? (Eclipse, ANT, et al)
> 4) Are there easy tools to obtain and plenty of cross-platform support
> for it? How much time will it take the people using it to switch over
> (DL new client, set up hassles, etc?)
learning curve myself currently, but the fact that many big FOSS
projects like KDE, Gnome, Wine, X, Eclipse, Ruby, Debian, or Qt have a
moved to git implies that the development tools most widely used in the
FOSS community will most certainly comply with git. Eclipse, for example
has EGit as a team provider, and it would be very strange if it was
developed on git but would not support it itself. I don't think the SCC
used has no relevance for ant.
Anyway, I just though it might be worth thinking about this.
- On 26 April 2011 12:09, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
> <Pulls on his old curmudgeon hat>All very sensible.
> I'm not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
> view. We are fairly short on volunteer time currently and spending that
> on admin work when there is plenty of development to do seems a waste.
> Currently SVN is serving us well.
> <Pulls off hat>
> GIT is certainly offered by SourceForge so it could be done. I'd beI've used them both. For me, begining to use git was not that difficult,
> interested in hearing what you think would be the benefit over SVN.
I found it closely resembled SVN, close enough that the concepts
mapped easily, but I found it more useful. It handles doing mutiple
things much better than SVN. I often find myself with multiple bits of
change going on at the same time in the same build area. I start
something and then find myself in the middle of something else.
Resolving this with cvs or svn is a severe PITA for me, with git it's
really really easy. Maybe you're all disciplined enough that this
doesn't happen to you, but it happens to me.
Creating and merging development lines is easy, much easier than with
svn, IMO (and I think for most people who try it).
Temporarily parking a change to come back to it later, takes seconds
seconds to put it away, seconds to get it back into the current directory.
In the general case I find it easier to work with abnd more powerful than
> PS: Just to clarify Martijn's description then. Once the new UI is in aIf you've already gone through the pain of the main merge, then there
> condition to replace the old UI, we would merge the uisync branch back
> into the trunk. This should be largely automatic - we've already done
> the painful manual update getting from cdomui branch to the new uisync
> branch (which started as a branch of trunk just after the release of
probably wont be any great benefit from moving to git for that.