Xlib moved to git

[Egbert Eich]

Maybe we should come to a common understanding that keithp's
apporach was a somewhat undiplomatic way of 
    - speeding up the discussion on which future SCM to use,
    - fostering a particular SCM - one which seems to enjoy 
      some support among this group here,
    - providing a sample project to demonstrate the strengths
      and capabilities of this specific SCM to a broader audience
    - providing an opportunity to investigate and solve the issue 
      people may have with this SCM
before any final decision is made which will be made more openly
and based on a broader consensus.

After all we have seen Xlib development hosted outside of the 
main repository before.

;-)

Cheers,
	Egbert.

Adam Jackson writes:
 > On Sunday 19 February 2006 15:40, Keith Packard wrote:
 > > In this particular case, we want to provide two parallel versions of the
 > > same library, an XCB version (as discussed at the X developers
 > > conference) and the existing version. Without some reasonable revision
 > > management, it wasn't going to be easy to deal with.
 > 
 > Bullshit.
 > 
 > The proposal I put forth at xdc was that the current, classic-style Xlib would 
 > become the Xlib 1.0 stable branch, and that the XCB merge would become Xlib 
 > 1.1.  This is completely within the admittedly anemic capability of CVS to 
 > handle, and is not a reason to switch.
 > 
 > > So, a move from CVS was warranted, but perhaps a bit more email-based
 > > warning would have been helpful in this case.
 > 
 > So did you think beforehand "hey, maybe I should notify the list first", or 
 > was this a case of having one too many hits of wasabi first?
 > 
 > > I've selected GIT for my work for many reasons:
 > >
 > >  1) It has a credible track record with a real, large project.
 > >
 > > This rules out things like Darcs, monotone, bzr, etc.
 > 
 > Now see, I was hoping for a few months of real world experience within our own 
 > domain before moving our own SCM.  Like, say, cairo.
 > 
 > >  3) I have local support available (price == sushi).
 > >
 > > The only local SCMS developer I know wrote git.
 > 
 > As much as you like to harp on this, it's not actually a valid argument for 
 > Xorg as a whole.  Nice try though.
 > 
 > >  6) The distributed model provides new developers tools.
 > >
 > > Allowing all developers to share the SCMS, whether or not they have
 > > commit access is a huge feature. New features can be developed and
 > > distributed by people with no commit access as if they were peers in the
 > > project, and not second-class citizens.
 > 
 > The flip side of this is that it only provides those tools on those platforms 
 > where the tool exists.  What's the status of git on win32 these days?
 > 
 > Let me be perfectly clear here: I think moving from cvs to git is great.  Even 
 > for low velocity projects like Xlib.  Doing so without announcing the 
 > intention first, without allowing soak time in your first converted project 
 > (cough, cairo), and without making sure the chosen tool would actually work 
 > on all the platforms we support, is - shall we say - mildly antisocial.
 > 
 > I've been mildly antisocial before too, so I'll probably let this one slide.
 > 
 > - ajax
 > _______________________________________________
 > xorg mailing list
 > xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
 > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg