[Scummvm-devel] Switching to Git (was Re: Broken Sword 2.5)

[Bertrand Augereau]

By the way I'm open to do commit suppression or to try the FreeSCI history injection on the repository myself.

--- En date de : Sam 7.8.10, Bertrand Augereau <bertrand_augereau at yahoo.fr> a écrit :

> De: Bertrand Augereau <bertrand_augereau at yahoo.fr>
> Objet: Re: [Scummvm-devel] Switching to Git (was Re: Broken Sword 2.5)
> À: "Max Horn" <max at quendi.de>
> Cc: "Henry Bush" <scummvm at spookypeanut.co.uk>, "ScummVM devel" <scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>, sev at scummvm.org
> Date: Samedi 7 août 2010, 19h26
> 
> 
> --- En date de : Sam 7.8.10, Max Horn <max at quendi.de> a
> écrit :
> 
> > De: Max Horn <max at quendi.de>
> > Objet: Re: [Scummvm-devel] Switching to Git (was Re:
> Broken Sword 2.5)
> > À: "Bertrand Augereau" <bertrand_augereau at yahoo.fr>
> > Cc: sev at scummvm.org,
> "Henry Bush" <scummvm at spookypeanut.co.uk>,
> "ScummVM devel" <scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Samedi 7 août 2010, 16h46
> > 
> > Am 07.08.2010 um 15:09 schrieb Bertrand Augereau:
> > 
> > >> I don't know enough about git to give an
> informed
> > answer on
> > >> that.
> > >> However, what I do know is that at work we
> just
> > switched
> > >> from cvs to
> > >> git, and we just dumped everything in a
> single
> > repository
> > >> to begin
> > >> with, in the knowledge that we could shuffle
> it
> > round
> > >> afterwards, and
> > >> it has worked very well, much less painful
> than I
> > imagined.
> > >> But we
> > >> haven't done the shuffling yet ;-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Merging renames can be a hassle on large
> repositories
> > (O(n2) IIRC) (and didn't work correctly at some point
> in the
> > past) but it does work well at ork with a 60GB working
> copy
> > including binary assets and source code.
> > > Thus I think dumping brutally all the history in
> a git
> > repository and grafting/refactoring/shuffling
> incrementally
> > stuff we need as Henry did could be a good solution
> that
> > could haste the process, as git will probably manage
> > following all the moves.
> > 
> > Just somebody has to do that work. Also, messing with
> the
> > repository like that would change commit ids, right?
> So we
> > wouldn't want to do this after we started to make the
> > repository public... Or am I missing something?
> 
> 
> A few force updates are acceptable (I think) if you notify
> all the users they will have to rebase their branches.
> The advantage is that everybody would begin to use git now,
> pusjhng on "trunk" and when somebody refactors "trunk" for
> having a better history, their commits will still apply with
> rebase, cherry-pick or am.
> I think this is a good tradeof for improving
> "time-to-market" for git at scummvm :)
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Max
> 
> 
>       
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by 
> 
> Make an app they can't live without
> Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>