Just a quick followup on the completion of the Bricolage Git migration last week, today I completed writing up a set of GitHub wiki documents explaining to my fellow Bricoleurs how to start hacking. The most important bits are:
- Working with Git, explaining how to get set up with a forked Bricolage repository
- Contributing a Bug Fix, an intro to the Git way of doing things (as far as I understand it)
- Working with Branches, describing how to track a maintenance branch in your fork
- Merging with Git, to cover the frequent merging from Bricolage maintenance branches into master, and how to get said merges pushed upstream
- Starting a Project Branch, which you’d need to read if you were taking on a major development task, such as a Summer of Code project
- Contributing via Email, for those who don’t want a GitHub account (needs fleshing out)
- Creating a Release, in which the fine art of branching, tagging, and releasing is covered
If you’re familiar with the “Git way,” I would greatly appreciate your feedback on these documents. Corrections and comments would be greatly appreciated.
I also just wanted to say that the process of reconstructing the merge history from CVS and Subversion was quite an eye-opener for me. Not because it was difficult (it was) and required a number of hacks (it did), but because it highlighted just how much better a fit Git is for the way in which we do Open Source software development. Hell, probably closed-source, too, for that matter. I no longer will have to think about what revisions to include in a merge, or create a branch just to “tag” a merge. Hell, I’ll probably be doing merges a hell of a lot more often, just because it’s so easy, the history remains intact, and everything just stays more up-to-date and closely integrated.
But I also really appreciate the project-based emphasis of Git. A Subversion repository, I now realize, is really very much like a versioned file system. That means where things go is completely ad-hoc, or convention-driven at best. And god forbid if you decide to change the convention and move stuff around! It’s just so much more sane to get a project repository, with all of the history, branches, tags, merges, and everything else, all in one package. It’s more portable, it’s a hell of a lot faster (ever tried to check out a Subversion repository with 80 tags?), and just tighter. it encourages modularization, which can only be good. I’ll tell you, I expect to have some frustrations and challenges as I learn more about using Git, but I’m already very much happier with the overall philosophy.
Enough evangelizing. As a last statement on this, I’ve uploaded the Perl scripts I wrote to do this migration, just in case someone else finds them useful:
- bric_cvs_to_git migrated a CVS backup to Git.
- bric_to_git migrated Subversion from r5517 to Git.
- stitch stitched the CVS-migrated Git repository into the Subversion-migrated Git repository for a final product.
It turned out that there were a few files lost in the conversion, which I didn’t notice until after all was said and done, but overall I’m very happy. My thanks again to Ask and the denizens of #git for all the help.
Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.