Re: better changeset tracking

Pierre wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/31/07, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote: > >> As we expect many more years for PHP we should make sure that the train >> we're riding has momentum and can help us continue to scale our dev >> process. I think SVN is the right train to hop onto. > > I would like to propose Git. I think it is more appropriate for large > projects like PHP. I do not have the time to provide a full list of > its advantages or features but here are some of its huge advantages: > - user tree > - its ability to push patches from a tree to another > - CVS bridge (non developers can still checkout/provide patches using cvs) > > For example, it is possible to have (only examples! :): Dmitry working > on a complete rewrite of the engine, Stan is fixing TSRM and the QA > fixing the stable/dev trees. The RMs can still prepare releases in the > main tree. > > The release manager can then safely choose which patches should be > pushed. The developers do not have to take care about the release > process in their trees. Experiments can be done safely in a tree and > merged (even partially) when they are ready. > > freedesktop has moved to GIT some time ago and for what I heard from > the developers, it is a huge improvement in their development process. > The only bad point (which exists with any other migratrion) is the > time required to learn the new tool. Which I think is the fatal flaw for a project this large. Git is also not very refined. If you are going to stray that far from the centralized repository approach then bzr is probably a better bet. With merge-tracking and cherry picking coming in Subversion you get much of the same benefits without turning the world upside down. -Rasmus