Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

Llama · 2009-02-06 09:53:47

Hi,

Close to an year ago there was news about Arch moving from CVS to SVN. Nevertheless, git seems to be mentioned much more often than SVN. What is the place of these version control systems in the Arch workflow?

pressh · 2009-02-06 10:09:44

Not sure what you exactly want to know, but for the projects we use git and for the repos svn.

git:
http://projects.archlinux.org/

svn:
http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/

Last edited by pressh (2009-02-06 10:12:26)

Llama · 2009-02-06 13:47:40

Thanks! History/reasons why?

jordz · 2009-02-06 14:04:14

Do you mean ABS moved from CVS to SVN sometime ago?

Llama · 2009-02-06 14:35:02

Yes. Also where git comes into the picture.

Dusty · 2009-02-06 14:40:56

Git is used to manage most project code -- ie: programs that we are developing for internal or external use. In general, any source-code contributions to these projects would be accepted as git patches. Git is far superior to subversion for source code control and distributing patches.

Subversion is used internally for the maintenance of pkgbuilds. I don't do any packaging myself, so I'm not 100% sure what goes on at that level, but I believe each PKGBUILD update has a distinct subversion revision number. They have a number of internal tools for adding/updating/compiling/distributing packages that all call native subversion commands. Git was discussed as an option when this change was made, but the subversion model was thought to be superior for reasons that I can't recall now.

In addition, I believe rsync is used for distributing pkgbuilds to end users via ABS; this used to be done using cvsup.

Hope that explains it.

Dusty

shining · 2009-02-06 14:41:52

Llama wrote:

Thanks! History/reasons why?

I guess because there were different needs for repo packages, and for arch projects.
I suppose git is used for arch projects because it is the favorite tool of most arch developers.

For the repo switch, there was a long brainstorming at several moments between arch developers. Afaik the main discussion starts here :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01904.html
Then two main implementations were proposed :
1) svn : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01969.html
2) git : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 02191.html

It might be that the svn way won only because the implementation was more advanced because the dev behind put more efforts into it

cactus · 2009-02-06 20:06:31

yeah. there was a google group about it (march '07 ish), but xentac had pretty much a solution in his mind for svn already, and no amount of my attempts to convince him otherwise bore fruit..so he wrote the svn tool support.

Then when the discussion rolled around again later on the main mailing list (october '07 ish?), xentac had some code already for svn.
I think Dan carried the torch for git support that time around.

edit: it looks like the arch-repo google group is no longer up. must have been removed since it was no longer used.

Last edited by cactus (2009-02-06 20:09:52)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-06 09:53:47

Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#2 2009-02-06 10:09:44

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#3 2009-02-06 13:47:40

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#4 2009-02-06 14:04:14

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#5 2009-02-06 14:35:02

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#6 2009-02-06 14:40:56

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#7 2009-02-06 14:41:52

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

#8 2009-02-06 20:06:31

Re: Arch sources: git and/or Subversion?

Board footer