Haha... not quite alphabetically, this is what happens when you add things to a posting last minute!
1) fossil 2) git 3) hg ;) GC On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > What follows are my general thoughts on this whole discussion thusfar. > I'm only throwing out these thoughts for consideration at this point. > > All of Eric's statements are excellent arguments for GIT. The value > of something like github, since it is widely used and allows for any > number of people to pull from our repository and create their own > variations on GNUstep, shouldn't be undervalued. It seems I spoke a > little too soon when I said git was off the table. Using github > would give us access to a large community of people who could > potentially help make GNUstep a better project and that's what we > ultimately all want. That being said git's user interface is terrible > and there is a learning curve associated with using it. GIT can be > difficult to deal with at first and can make it very easy to lose data > if you make a mistake. > > The way I see it, we have three real choices at this point (listed > alphabetically): > > 1) git > 2) hg > 3) fossil > > git and hg are both supported by savannah at this point. Both are > decentralized. Both are well tested and well known and proven. > > Currently, I know git better than I do mercurial, so I have no basis > on which to judge whether or not mercurial is better or worse. I only > have what everyone else has said comparing the two systems. > > Fossil, while it seems good and very comparable to both git and hg is > not very well known and not widely adopted. I've learned in my > career that, while something might be technically better, that's, > sadly, not always enough. Still we may want to consider this option > as well, if it's promising enough it might be worth it. > > Each of the pros and cons of these choices should be weighed > individually and carefully. GNUstep changing it's source code hosting > is something which has happened only once in a decade so we need to be > sure of our choice once it's made and we need to be sure that we can > live with whatever implications come out of that choice. This is not > something that will be done lightly or overnight. > > Another concern we should address as part of this effort is that the > current structure of the repository is somewhat convoluted and > confusing. I would like to resolve this issue when we make this > move. We may wish to consider splitting out all of the sub projects > in GNUstep into separate projects so that they can be individually > managed. > > Thanks, GC > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Eric Wasylishen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> I would be strongly in favour of switching to a dvcs, and in particular git, >> with mercurial as a second choice. There's no excuse these days not to have >> the entire project history stored on your hard disk, whereas in 2005 or so, >> if you wanted a free dvcs you had a small selection of obscure tools. >> >> One big advantage of dvcs's, which is something I don't hear discussed a >> lot, is how much better the GUI's are for reviewing recent commits made by >> other people. In my opinion, every active developer should be reviewing the >> diffs of most commits to their project. It's simply too slow for me to deal >> with in subversion (look up the revision number, run svn diff >> -rRevisionBeforeFoo:foo | vim -, wait several seconds, read the diff, look >> up the next rev # I want to read, repeat…). Is everyone else reviewing most >> diffs of recent commits? My bet is people aren't reviewing as much as they >> could because it's slow with subversion. >> >>> I don't think there are any positive reasons to pick git, so it's off the >>> table. >> >> >> When I decided to learn a dvcs to use for all of my personal projects, I >> picked git because I liked the hosting sites available for it the best (in >> particular, github), and in other respects it seemed at least as good as the >> other major contenders. >> >> Some points from my experience with git (2 years, but I stick to the basic >> features): >> >> - the git index feature is very handy when coupled with a good GUI (for >> example, the official git gui app, or the closed-source SourceTree mac app.) >> If you haven't used this feature, I highly recommend trying it. With a good >> tool, it amounts to interactive diff editing - you can interactively choose >> which parts of you working copy to "stage" for the next commit. The two >> tools I mentioned let you select a range of lines with your mouse and >> stage/unstage them in the right-click context menu - very powerful. e.g. >> often I have some logging code I don't want to commit. Unlike some other >> "power user" features in git (rebasing, etc.) this one is something you can >> learn on your own and pretty much impossible to screw anything up with :-). >> >> - git appears to be the most popular dvcs. IMHO this importance of this >> point shouldn't be underestimated - it means there is a lot of help >> available; it's really easy to find tutorials, quick-reference cards, great >> hosting websites. New developers are more likely to know it than obscure >> dvcs's. >> >> - the argument that git is harder to use than subversion, or that the git >> command line tools have a terrible UI doesn't match my experience. I find >> the comand-line menus in subversion awful (e.g. svn update. "Foo.m is >> conflicting, type 'e' to edit, 'p' to postpone, etc.) and have lost work by >> typing the wrong command more than once. I've messed up git working copies >> only once or twice - same with subversion - by trying commands without >> understanding what was going on. >> >> >> There are lots of git vs mercurial or git vs foo comparisons available on >> the web, some better than others. Here's one git vs mercurial example: >> >> http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches/ >> >> I would be hesitant to switch to a dvcs other than git or mercurial, because >> they're both proven (used by many major free software projects), both good >> and roughly equivalent, and potential new developers are likely to know >> these. Fossil sounds nice but is relatively obscure. I've heard bazaar >> highly recommended by friends, but again, not that many people use it >> outside of the Ubuntu devs. >> >> Also, if switching to a dvcs for GNUstep means that I have to learn a new >> system (mercurial would be new for me), I want it to be something that I can >> expect to use in other open-source communities or jobs (which you can expect >> of mercurial and git, given they are pretty widespread.) >> >> Regards, >> Eric >> >> >> On 2012-02-13, at 10:38 AM, Nicolas Roard wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:30 AM, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 13 Feb 2012, at 13:23, Quentin Mathé wrote: >>>> >>>>> I quite like Fossil, but I'd be fine with Mercurial too. Both seems to >>>>> have a similar command-line interface: >>>>> Fossil: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quickstart.wiki >>>>> Mercurial: >>>>> http://ivy.fr/mercurial/ref/v1.0/Mercurial-QuickStart-v1.0-120dpi.png >>>>> >>>>> As a disclaimer, my experience is limited to Git. I used it for several >>>>> months, although it has some nice features, but its command-line >>>>> interface is a pain, and it's easy to corrupt your local repository >>>>> history by mistake. >>> >>> I've been using git for the last couple of years at work (well, a mix >>> of git and our own scripts, gerrit), and while the beginning was a bit >>> annoying, I really can't work without it now. I agree that you indeed >>> can shoot yourself in the foot with git, but if you follow a >>> reasonable workflow it's pretty simple (i.e. git add -p, git commit). >>> And its merge capabilities are pretty awesome. So if you are looking >>> at it as a replacement for your SVN workflow, you can keep things very >>> simple I think; more complicated things are complicated, but at least >>> they are doable (not really the case with SVN). >>> >>> Other than the merge capabilities, I think the other important point >>> with git is that it's now widespread, so it's pretty easy to find >>> documentation or people to teach you. >>> >>> That being said, I never played with mercurial, and heard good things >>> from it as well. Fossil looks interesting, I'm just a bit wary of >>> picking another obscure technology :) >>> >>> -- >>> Nicolas Roard >>> "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound >>> they make as they fly by." -- Douglas Adams >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss-gnustep mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss-gnustep mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep > > > > -- > Gregory Casamento > Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant > yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa > (240)274-9630 (Cell) > http://www.gnustep.org > http://heronsperch.blogspot.com -- Gregory Casamento Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa (240)274-9630 (Cell) http://www.gnustep.org http://heronsperch.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
