Chris Burroughs 2012-07-26, 15:39
Neha Narkhede 2012-07-26, 15:40
Taylor Gautier 2012-07-26, 18:31
Joel Koshy 2012-07-26, 18:43
Jay Kreps 2012-07-26, 21:11
Jonathan Creasy 2012-07-26, 21:35
Joe Stein 2012-07-28, 13:50
Chris Burroughs 2012-07-28, 22:49
Just to throw in (an admittedly external) $0.02: with Git, at least, *everyone* has a full copy of the repo, +/- local changes, so even a catastrophic failure of the apache Git servers would still allow a reconstruct of the repo elsewhere (say GitHub, or a different apache server). AFAIK, this isn't possible with SVN.
On Jul 28, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Chris Burroughs wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 02:43 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
>> +1 for git in general - however, the apache git mirror has been working
>> pretty well for me for local work/code review. So if the caveats you
>> mention are significant enough then maybe we should stay on svn?
> I think the caveats are of the "things *could* go wrong" variety, but
> that current git users are happy and have not had recent problems. I
> admit there isn't a good way to quantify that.
Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Chris Burroughs 2012-07-31, 00:40
Jun Rao 2012-07-31, 16:08
Chris Burroughs 2012-08-02, 12:36
Chris Burroughs 2012-08-02, 12:42