dist-git project update
Karel Zak
kzak at redhat.com
Thu Jun 17 11:43:23 UTC 2010
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 03:59:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 01:05:38AM +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> > I second that, unless there are some obvious advantages which I cannot
> > see. In case there are some it would be great if they get mentioned in
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Proposal
>
> Linked from there:
>
> Current Pain Points
>
> * No atomic commits
> * Not being able to work offline (cvs add needs a server, wtf.)
> * Adding sources can be "weird", can easily clobber existing sources
> * Can't handle big files well
> * CVS bogons/bonghits/grimlins/websuckage
> * Prohibitively expensive to reconstruct infrastructure outside our
> environment
> * Better handling of force-tag
> * Commits are SLOW!!!
> * Common dir, wtf.
> * Really really unreliable (especially with a lot of actions or
> continuous actions)
> * Prep work to get into package source control is done outside of source
> control. No opportunity to learn the tools
* changes are not content-addressed
* difficult to reliable compare two trees (repositories)
* branches are useless, difficult to maintain, merge, ...
* does not support distributed development (how I can clone my
fedora pkg SCM at fedorapeople?)
* does not allow to track more remote repositories in one local
repository
* does not support GPG-signed tags
* impossible to read patches from e-mail, send well formatted
patches by email, ...
* commit messages are very poor and not integrated to patches
* does not differentiate between patch author and committer
* browse project history is difficult and SLOW
* cvs log/status is horrible, unreadable and unformattable
* brain dead web interface
* bad documentation
* no active development of CVS
* many developer use already git and Fedora is the last place where
they have to fight with CVS
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak at redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
More information about the devel
mailing list