Some people might still be using forks on the bitbucket repo but
master hasn't been updated for 3 weeks (when we swapped to github). I
don't know if there are any plans to keep bb in sync or not - if
anyone is interested in doing that they can talk to the PLT about it I
Anyway, to answer your question, I'm totally in love with DVCS on a
number of levels.
The first level is for my work purposes. I deal with a client on-site
and their firewall prevents me from accessing and sort of repo
remotely. Subversion was a pain because I'd have to save up a days
worth of changes, then remember to commit that at night. I'm the kind
of guy that likes to make one change per commit so this was a lot of
work to remember the incremental changes at the end of the day.
Swapping to hg initially was a Godsend. At least I could commit to
the local repo as frequently, or not, as I liked and just push that
night (but then it wasn't a big deal if I didn't get to push). That
alone was a big business life changer for me, significant enough for
me to wish I'd swapped over years ago.
Getting into hg from a project level though made me realise how
subversion holds us back from contribution. It makes you realise how
horrible branches in SVN are when dealing with large numbers of
contributors and large numbers of branches.
The attitude that "everything is a fork" also breaks down these
barriers of what's a fork and what isn't. Well, everything's now a
fork and if it finds its way back to master, well and good, but if it
doesn't but is useful elsewhere, hey that's awesome too.
While I actually find hg easier to use, and the plans on bitbucket are
probably a bit better from a storage point of view, the decision to go
with git came down to 1) the granularity by which pull requests could
be made (bitbucket just didn't cut it), and 2) it's perceived to be
*the* place to host the *serious* projects. The collaboration
features alone of github win hands down (and the eGit on Eclipse takes
care of a lot of the hard work you'd otherwise do on the command
line), but we felt that most of the high flyer developers that we'd
like to attract to working on the platform, and ultimately anything
that's built on it, would be working in git.
All up, loving it and hoping to see many more people using it and
forking Joomla in the future :) I think it's one of the best moves
we've made in a long time, very much complimenting the changes we've
made in the release cycle and other areas of the project.
One of the things we obviously need now are some good docs to get
people started in using git, how, for example, the JBS get into it and
then suggestions for how to manage features you are building. Since
I'm a noob myself still, that's not something I feel competent doing
just yet :)
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Framework Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-frame...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-framework?hl=en-GB.
I'd recommend DVCS to a client now if they weren't using anything
else. I'd only use SVN if I was forced to for
> Also, how did you feel git's learning curve after hg?, do you think it
> would have been better to jump right into git from the start?.
Um, I'm glad I did it in the order of hg, then git. hg makes a lot
more sense coming from svn, and learning the most simple ropes in hg
helped a bit with git. I'm a bit better on the command line with hg
compared to git. git seems to be a bit more complicated there so I'm
really flying by the ability for eGit to hold my hand a lot.