Over the last few weeks we've been discussing a solution to a dilemma that's been obstructing us for some time - source management.
Prior to the migration to GIT, we were facing problems involving the corruption of the main respository due to untested changes, and decided to switch to GIT's extremely flexible source control.
Unfortunately, GIT has proven to be no longer sustainable. Although it offers all the features needed for a diverse open-source project such as MTASA, it has slowly become impractical for the source mantainers to merge your changes into the source. This means although it's (relatively) simple for anyone to create their own forks and push changes, it's a painful process to merge this into the main MTA repository itself. On top of this, i'm sure many of you will be wary of the general complexities involved in setting up your own fork, and getting your head round GIT altogether.
We have now concluded that the best course of action will be to go back to SVN (and Google Code). However, a lot has been learnt from GIT and things will not be how they were originally with SVN. We have decided that becoming a Project Contributor will be much more lax than it was previously: if you've submitted a few (2-3) worthy patches, you will be added and have commit access to our SVN. This means we expect a large number of people to be able to contribute - maintaining the public nature that GIT offers. I would like to stress that it will not be difficult to gain commit access. Furthermore, commits will be reviewable by anyone in the public where they can add their comments easily to each commit, and give a positive or negative rating.
Of course, to prevent source corruption we will add a number of measures. Firstly, we will be moderating the SVN repository to ensure that it is always compilable and playable. Poorly coded changes will be reverted, and changes that are good enough will be filtered off into an 'approved' branch. This means we will mantain a partial structure of a development and unstable developer builds as with GIT.
The question i pose to you is: Would you like to see MTA move back to SVN? Feel free to be perfectly honest, and ideally state your reasoning in a reply to this thread. I must emphasise that although the verdict of the poll will influence the decision, it will not be the deciding factor. That is something left to the team as a whole. Feel free to vote even if aren't a coder - if you have an insight into the development process and understand some of the logic behind this decision, please do vote. If you have no idea what this topic is about, I'd kindly ask you refrain from voting.
Question
darkdreamingdan
Over the last few weeks we've been discussing a solution to a dilemma that's been obstructing us for some time - source management.
Prior to the migration to GIT, we were facing problems involving the corruption of the main respository due to untested changes, and decided to switch to GIT's extremely flexible source control.
Unfortunately, GIT has proven to be no longer sustainable. Although it offers all the features needed for a diverse open-source project such as MTASA, it has slowly become impractical for the source mantainers to merge your changes into the source. This means although it's (relatively) simple for anyone to create their own forks and push changes, it's a painful process to merge this into the main MTA repository itself. On top of this, i'm sure many of you will be wary of the general complexities involved in setting up your own fork, and getting your head round GIT altogether.
We have now concluded that the best course of action will be to go back to SVN (and Google Code). However, a lot has been learnt from GIT and things will not be how they were originally with SVN. We have decided that becoming a Project Contributor will be much more lax than it was previously: if you've submitted a few (2-3) worthy patches, you will be added and have commit access to our SVN. This means we expect a large number of people to be able to contribute - maintaining the public nature that GIT offers. I would like to stress that it will not be difficult to gain commit access. Furthermore, commits will be reviewable by anyone in the public where they can add their comments easily to each commit, and give a positive or negative rating.
Of course, to prevent source corruption we will add a number of measures. Firstly, we will be moderating the SVN repository to ensure that it is always compilable and playable. Poorly coded changes will be reverted, and changes that are good enough will be filtered off into an 'approved' branch. This means we will mantain a partial structure of a development and unstable developer builds as with GIT.
The question i pose to you is: Would you like to see MTA move back to SVN? Feel free to be perfectly honest, and ideally state your reasoning in a reply to this thread. I must emphasise that although the verdict of the poll will influence the decision, it will not be the deciding factor. That is something left to the team as a whole. Feel free to vote even if aren't a coder - if you have an insight into the development process and understand some of the logic behind this decision, please do vote. If you have no idea what this topic is about, I'd kindly ask you refrain from voting.
Thanks
Link to comment
17 answers to this question
Recommended Posts