Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:07:22 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Sean, hi all,
First of all let me just express my joy for this decision. I believe
it can create an interesting dynamic around MASON.
Regarding your question, I do not have the experience myself, but it
seems the folk at GitHub have taken some care to guarantee things go
smoothly. They enforce a particular repository structure clearly
defining where branches and tags reside:
https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-support
Thus all svn actions should unequivocally map to a git action (or set
of actions), avoiding unexpected repository states.
Naturally, svn lacks loads of interesting stuff existing in git, such
as stashing, sub-modules, etc. If one of these modern things is pushed
to GitHub, then whomever accesses the repository with svn might start
missing some of the fun.
Regards,
Luís
On 4 June 2015 at 15:21, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So I'm thinking we may migrate ecj and mason to GitHub, which has dual git/SVN access. I'll probably still maintain things in SVN, but if you're into git you can access the repositories that way.
>
> I imagine read/write from SVN and *read* from git works fine. But does anyone with experience in this model know how well doing read/write from both git and svn works in reality?
>
> Sean
|
|
|