Hoi, We are indeed using SVN successfully.
As to Toolserver, this environment and its functionality is deeply flawed. As the tools are open source, there is no reason why relevant tools cannot be brought into GIT and upgraded to a level where they are of production quality. Either GIT is able to cope or its distributed character adds no real value.
The notion that it has to be MediaWiki core and or its extensions first is absurd when you consider that it is what we use to run one of the biggest websites of the world. We rely on the continued support for our production process. The daily process provided by LocalisationUpdate is such a production process. When the continuity of production processes is not a prime priority, something is fundamentally wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 March 2011 17:30, Ryan Lane rlane32@gmail.com wrote:
When you look at the situation with the Toolserver where everybody has
its
own toy source area you have a situation where internationalisation and
the
upgrading of functionality to a production level is not happening. If GIT
is
so great, then solve an existing pain which is the inability to
collaborate
on toolserver tools.
GIT is cool, it is the flavour of the month. It is an improvement when it proves itself in what is in my opinion a manifest dysfunctional source management environment. When the Toolserver sources are all in a GIT repository and its localisation becomes manageable, you have the proof of the pudding demonstrating problem solving ability. When
internationalisation
and localisation are part of the solution you are convincing that we can move to GIT.
Toolserver has a social problem, not a technological one. They have the ability to use SVN, or a source control system of their choosing, yet they don't. This thread is discussing a perceived problem with a tool we are already successfully using. Let's focus on one issue at a time.
- Ryan Lane
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l