[SCM TRANSITION] Re: Proposal: move Randr protocol and library to git

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 10:37:43AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 April 2006 05:08, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > However  I feel that this should be done in one consolidated efford
> > with the clear goal in mind to have all pieces available in the same
> > SCM once the process is completed like it happend in the modularization
> > effords (thanks to Kevin at al.!).
...
> 
> For all the modules that matter, I expect we'll see them all end up in one 
> SCM.  If xedit never moves over to git, so what, no one likes xedit anyway.  
> I'm not particularly concerned with timeframe for that, excluding the server 
> where keeping it in CVS until 7.1 is a practical decision motivated by a) 
> insufficient import tools, largely addressed by now, and b) allowing 
> sufficient lead time for the developer pool to adjust.
> 
> I don't see any real benefit to doing them all at once, and I do see a lot of 
> work with no one signed up to do it.  There's probably an argument to be made 
> that doing them piecewise allows for a graceful transition time during which 
> people can see the change coming, adjust to the new tools, and not completely 
> lose their productivity in the process.
> 
> > The great benefit of a project like X.Org is that it allows to agree
> > on and establish a set of common standards, guidelines and procedures.
> > We should take advantage of this.
> 
> Historically, we haven't.  And even when we have, it hasn't worked very well.  
> The only real heavyweight policy decision we the Foundation have made is 
> modularisation, which took for god damned ever to get started [1], was only 
> really completed due to concerted effort by a very small team, still hasn't 
> been universally adopted by downstream vendors, and by being done in one step 
> exposed tons of API and ABI fragility...
> 
> Contrast this with all the lightweight processes we've established pretty much 
> by de-facto adoption (bugzilla triage guidelines, the [ANNOUNCE] convention, 
> the 7.1 process, the MAINTAINERS file...).  Which work!
> 
> We _suck_ at process.
> 
> - ajax
Maybe what Egbert is trying to say is: "Is git the official X.org SCM 
now?". This probably to get the matter settled once and for all.

There was a big flamewar when Keith did the xcb/libX11 push, so i'm not 
sure how accepted moving to git is. If it wasn't accepted, then i guess 
that the piecemeal moving to git is to make it an unavoidable fact, 
avoiding another timewasting row which ends in utter indecision. 

Egbert, i don't agree with everyone and everything having to move at the 
exact same time. Piecewise is the way to go here. We should just get 
"Yes, we're moving to git" out in the open, now, and then say "Should be 
done before 7.2 freeze", at which time the release managers (ajax) 
probably get to parsecvs the remainder (xedit). Running parsecvs is not 
a lot of work.

The move to using git, even when being totally caught up in only CVS 
(like i was), isn't unovercomeable, and it's less painful and very much 
faster than modularisation. But it does require a small bit of effort 
from everyone instead of a lot of effort from a few.

7.2 is at least 6m away, this is plenty of time for everyone to get 
superficially acquainted with git. And if 7.2 is considered too early, 
I'm sure that packagers and distributors are more easily able to cope 
with pulling code from both CVS and git, than every last developer 
adjusting their modus operandi from CVS to git.

Luc Verhaegen.