develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2008

Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
November 16, 2008 10:44
Subject:
Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)
Message ID:
20081116184438.GI28244@klangraum.plasmasturm.org
* Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> [2008-11-16 18:55]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> > Furthermore, just as git does not impose any particular
> > workflow, it does not impose it at any one time; by which I
> > mean to say, you can always change it or make additions or
> > adjustments later.
>
> Great. That makes the answer really easy:
>
> RIGHT NOW we go for exactly the same workflow as we're using
> with Perforce.

That is not going to *entirely* work because git is not the same
as Perforce and the centralised model makes assumptions and
impositions that git does not. But it is certainly possible to
stay close.

I think important in is this case in particular is the part that
followed the one you quoted: that groups of people with different
workflows can collaborate productively. In other words, you (Nick
Clark, not the general “you”) can stick to something close to
Perforce while the more git-experienced committers can take more
advantage of distribution without you having to hop right into
the deep end trying to understand everything at once. You’ll get
to see what they’re doing and how, and get some assistance in how
it can all be fit together, getting into the groove by example.

> We change EXACTLY ONE THING at a time.
>
> Then, once we're happy with using git to do the tasks we
> already know about, we change and improve the workflow using
> the same tool.
>
> Small incremental changes. Far more likely to succeed.

My only concern with that is to avoid infrastructure like the
smokers getting set up in ways that are tied too closely to
transitory workflows, thereby becoming a roadblock to future
improvements.

Maybe we should simply declare all potentially restrictive
decisions (like which repository is going to be official/blessed)
to be tentative until all the current committers feel basically
comfortable with git so they can weigh the consequences of
choices and therefore make firm decisions themselves?

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About