On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:13:45AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alexander Kitaev <kitaev_at_tmatesoft.com> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > Our team is proud and delighted to announce SubGit 1.0.0 release!
> > New version is available for download at SubGit web site at http://subgit.com/
> > SubGit is a server-side tool for a smooth, stress-free Svn to Git
> > migration. SubGit lets one to set up a bidirectional Subversion to Git
> > replication (writable mirror) and thus it allows users to choose
> > freely between Subversion and Git version control systems.
> Except, of course when it doesn't. The use of OS specific EOL, which
> git does not support, and subversion keywords like $Id$ and $Author$,
> which git does not support, would seem to me to be an adventure
> begging to happen.
Of course there are problems with trying to do this.
But if you're always afraid of running into pitfalls you'll never
get anything done. I know you are particularly keen on pointing
out pitfalls because you're somebody who often ends up having to
work around them professionally, and I sense some love-hate
relationship going on here :)
We had some very interesting discussions with the Tmate folks
when they first announced SubGit at Subversion Day last year:
The announcement sparked some interest in German media:
My own conviction is that their entire endeavor of rewriting
Subversion and related components in Java is outright crazy.
But I'm not a Java developer, so maybe I just don't get it.
And the quality that Tmate produces is astounding, and the
persistence they show with keeping up with Subversion's
feature set in SVNKit is highly commendable.
Generally, the problem they're tackling with SubGit is a giant
compatibility mapping problem between two very different data
structures. It is quite interesting to see how much of that
problem space they can actually solve, and also how long it has
taken them to solve it! One of the developers at Tmate even
made this problem part of his thesis.
So please, before you dismiss these efforts by pointing out
the first minor potential compatibility problem that comes to mind,
pay them some respect for their efforts -- they've certainly
done their homework around keyword expansion, and lots more.
Received on 2012-09-20 11:44:50 CEST