[alsa-devel] HG vs GIT
tiwai at suse.de
Thu Feb 7 12:27:11 CET 2008
At Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:37:29 +0100 (CET),
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> it seems that GIT matured somewhat. git-push has been implemneted.
> It was main reason to not use GIT when we made decision between HG and
Hm, I thought it simply because you prefer python...
> As we could have potential problems with branches in HG
> repository, I would like to consider a switch to GIT althought it means
> some changes in my scripts on ALSA server and my ksync tool.
> I just successfully tried (a bit modified hg-to-git.py script) and
> it seems to be working properly.
> Any objections?
I don't mind to move to git, but IMHO, it's no urgent issue.
Let's get things out (e.g. concentrate on 2.6.25 merge) right now, and
then change the infrastructure in the right way.
BTW, one big annoying thing is that developers have no complete kernel
tree to access, and thus the patches that touch outside the ALSA
subdirectory cannot be merged easily. People often send patches
fixing together with OSS, etc, and I had to skip them. So, frankly,
I'd love to have an access to the whole kernel tree. But, OTOH, this
would make harder for other naive guys to give it a try because they
need to download the big linux kernel tree git.
Maybe we can think reversely. Keep the kernel git tree as the primary
development tree and generate the subset as the alsa-kernel package
from the kernel tree automatically. In this way, you can avoid also
sign-off messes, too.
In this scheme, you don't have to stick with stgit. The normal git
can handle patches well enough (via occasional rebase), and it's much
much faster than stgit. Of course, stgit is still good for small
number of patches, but it's not true for shared devel trees.
Just my $0.02.
More information about the Alsa-devel