[Rubyinstaller-devel] RFC: Version Control for new Installer?

Gordon Thiesfeld gthiesfeld at gmail.com
Wed Apr 23 13:49:58 EDT 2008


On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido
>  <gerardo.santana at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > I'm a recent converted from CVS to Git, and find it very nice.
>  >
>
>  Still get confused due the high quantity of commands available and the
>  huge amount of combos to get simple things going... That's what I call
>  a bad UI versus a good UI...
>
>
>  >  One of its advantages is precisely what Luis mentions, to have the
>  >  ability to create local experimental branches without impacting the
>  >  main repository, and cherry-picking what you want.
>  >
>  >  github.com helps open source projects to get even more exposure which
>  >  is a good thing, getting attention and potentially getting more
>  >  contributions back. Nothing that I can scientifically prove though.
>  >
>
>  I'm not 100% positive abut github. Like Zed wasn't with the move of
>  the svn repository outside rubyforge. We could better use gitorius [1]
>  instead of a closed source implementation, like if we go for LaunchPad
>  instead.
>

A lot of projects do primary souce control on Git, but merge to SVN on
rubyforge on a regular basis.  We could do the same, or the reverse.
Maybe we could keep SVN as the primary, but sync it up to Git.
Rubyforge also allows for a Git repo, although I don't know if it
would be worth changing to it at this point.  Also, I don't think we
can fault GitHub for being closed source.  After all, we're all here
because we want Ruby to work as well as possible on a closed source
OS.  GitHub is friendly _and free_ to open source projects, and I
agree with Gerardo that it could help us get more attention.

>  Even we have a full repo that can be relocated/pushed to another
>  hosting/site. I found quite annoying the relocation of repositories of
>  OSS projects.
>
>
>  >  AFAIK, there's a Git version for MSYS. According to my logic book,
>  >  since installer3 will run on MSYS, it doesn't feel wrong to use
>  >  msysgit, which is already used in production environments (according
>  >  to its Wikipedia entry).
>  >
>
>  Well, I mention msysGit in the original mail, basically it works,
>  still it misses a few bits but works. Still, we should keep using the
>  SVN repo at least for users already using Subversion at their
>  companies or working with other open-source projects that want to
>  contribute back, at least with patches.

I like this idea, there is no reason we can't do both.

That's my two cents.

Thanks,

Gordon


More information about the Rubyinstaller-devel mailing list