Next focus: PROCESS

[foobar]

On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 17:45:12 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 17:31:45 UTC, foobar wrote:
>> Huh?
>> Both LLVM and KDE are developed on *subversion* and as such 
>> their work-flows are not applicable. Not to mention that KDE 
>> is vastly different in concept and goals than a programming 
>> language.
>>
>> Subversion is conceptually very different from git and its 
>> model imposes practical restrictions that are not relevant for 
>> git, mostly with regards to branches, merging, etc. Actions 
>> which are first class and trivial to accomplish in git. This 
>> is analogous to designing highways based on the speed 
>> properties of bicycles.
>
> Guess what, I know that. The post by SomeDude just claimed that 
> release branches in general are impractical and not used by 
> open source projects, which is wrong.
>
> David

At least the first part in that sentence is correct - there are 
more practical work flows that are just more difficult to achieve 
in svn. The branch per release in those projects is just a 
consequence of SVN limitations. hence open source projects _that 
use git_ don't need to follow this route.

Either way, this is completely irrelevant for our purpose.
The process should be designed with DVCS in mind since we already 
settled on this [very successful] model for D. We should avoid 
designing a work-flow based on other models and limited 
experience with git.
Suggestions such as implementing specific [shell?] scripts and 
having branch-per-release brings no improvement over what we 
already have.

I personally transitioned my [previous] team from ancient systems 
(rcs, cvs, proprietary in-house crap) to git. It requires not 
only memorizing a few new command line commands but also grokking 
a different model. Those that do, use git to great effect and 
greatly increase their efficiency, others simply have a "ci" 
script that calls "git commit" and gain nothing.
At the moment we may use git commands but really we are still 
developing on mostly a subversion model. Walter used to accept 
patches and those were simply replaced by pull requests. There 
isn't any change in the mental model required to really benefit 
from a decentralized system such as git. This is what the process 
discussion is ultimately meant to fix.