Splitting out core and bindings final stages

[John (J5) Palmieri]

On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 16:46 +0100, Rob Taylor wrote:
> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 18:06 +1000, Brad Hards wrote:
> >> On Friday 05 May 2006 09:17 am, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> >>> NOTE: for the time being the dbus core libraries will continue to be
> >>> worked on in CVS and the bindings in git once the move happens.  The
> >>> core, along with its history will also be in git and if we ever decide
> >>> to move it we can import again from CVS and not duplicate the history.
> >> Where / when was the decision to move to git made?
> >>
> >> Brad
> > 
> > On the dbus irc channel.  Remember the move is only for the bindings
> > right now and not core.
> > 
> 
> 
> I should say that the consensus for git isn't absolute 

I was pretty strong.  In fact if I remember correctly the sentiments
were (paraphrasing) "anything but SVN" and "git looks like the best
choice".  

> - One worry I
> have is that it doesn't work on windows. 

Except that it does, Cairo devs has been using it since they switched.

> I like the idea of using a
> distributed RCS, but probably bzr would be better for a cross platform
> library like this. Dafydd Harries is currently having a look at the
> feasibility of importing and syncing dbus cvs with bzr, so I'll report
> back on that when he has some results.

Yay, yet another tool for fd.o admins to look after.  I'm half tempted
to just replay the git split back into CVS to avoid the controversy that
this is going to cause.

Carl already went through this and wrote up a nice why git when he went
through the cairo change
(http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2006-February/006255.html).

The main points are 

A) It really doesn't matter which distributed VCS we use because they
all basically work the same and if at one point one tool turns out to be
the winner it is easy to go from one to the other

B) git's layered approach makes it very easy to make it do what you
want.  I can attest to this fact being that splitting out the repository
was easier than I thought.

Also Carl's knowledge with respect to git is nothing to sneeze at.
Having him as a resource at fd.o is invaluable.  What it comes down to
is the tide is moving towards git at fd.o.  The general consensus of the
active d-bus devs was to go to a distributed system (Havoc being the one
holdout which does hold a lot of weight, but you said you wouldn't be a
blocker ;-).  I saw no point in going against the tide since the
advantages of sticking with what the rest of fd.o is doing (with the
free resources that affords us) far outweighs the differences between
git, bzr and mercurial.

Already the d-bus developers are stretched thin in terms of time
allotted to developing for it.  My goal and in fact my job as the
defacto maintainer is to move us forward to a stable 1.0.  If we are
going to block on this I'm serious about being just as well with
sticking with CVS.

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>