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

Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
November 16, 2008 10:52
Subject:
Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)
Message ID:
20081116185203.GM49335@plum.flirble.org
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 07:44:38PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> [2008-11-16 18:55]:

> > 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 samae
> as Perforce and the centralised model makes assumptions and
> impositions that git does not. But it is certainly possible to
> stay close.

Ah OK

> 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.

Right. This makes sense. So to me, right now, the useful assistance I'd like
would be to have documented how have a git workflow as close as is sane to the
current perforce commit-to-blead workflow.

(Given that once 5.8.9 comes out, I don't need to worry about merging
branches, so I don't need to immediately learn *that* in git)

> 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.

The smokers currently all run of the same rsync server. So whatever the
rsync server serves up is what all the current smokers will smoke. They
would only become a blocker if people started to set up smokers that got
their code via git, rather than rsync, and then expected that to keep working.
Right now the rsync server acts as a single point of control, that allows
us to easily change what "workflow" the (existing) smokers smoke.

Nicholas Clark

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