On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:01:45AM -0500, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, 08:11 Waldek Hebisch, <hebi...@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 03:48:43PM +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > > > ATM master sources are in svn, so diff is better than pull request.
> > >
> > > When do we switch to git?
> > >
> >
> > Well, some time ago I thought that I am almost ready for switch.
> > But then Camm Maguire wrote "fetch this special gcl branch".
> > Given branch name it worked, but without knowing the name
> > I was unable to find it in gcl git repo.
>
>
> saying "check out that very special commit" from svn repo does not get one
> far either.
>
> So either git
> > allows you to create invisible branches,
>
>
> git branch
>
> lets you list all the branches on a repo.
> Branch is basically a label for a well-behaved subset of commits, not much
> more than that.
> (there are also tags, something a bit different)
So I thought. But all my attempts to list the branch, of course
starting form 'git branch' failed. Yet knowing the name switch
to the branch worked.
> which I consider
> > evil, or I my understanding of git is way below what is
> > needed to effectivly use it. I use git for less important
> > projects, so I can survive using it. But I feel that
> > for me to use it for FriCAS developement is still too
> > inefficient and risky.
> >
>
> one need not be forced to use github/gitlab workflows of pull/merge
> requests. One can instead work with named branches.
Well, for FriCAS traditional branches are of limited use. My
main developement flow is interactive, compiling only edited
files and loading them, while if possible reusing test data
stored in the executing image. In fact, for new code I prefer
interpreter where I can work out expressions on command line,
then wrap them in a function, gradualy function by function
growing the code. Neither git nor svn help with this.
> --------
>
> The bottom line is that nowadays most people either never used svn, or
> already forgot all about it.
>
> (yes, I did use svn for a year in 1999 a lot, and for few more years later
> too, a bit, but now it is a source of major annoyance if I need to use it,
> it's like going back to Fortran 4 or punchcards).
>
> The projects that stick to cvs or svn suffer, as cvs and svn are legacy
> tools, and forcing it on contributors is counterproductive.
Well, I used cvs and svn was a definite progress compared to cvs.
Not so with git, at least for projects like FriCAS. I understand
that there is familiarity factor, different tool feels clumsy
because it is different, regardless of objective features. OTOH
which version control software is in use should not matter much
for contributors, main work is elsewere.
--
Waldek Hebisch
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/20200229165118.GA36920%40math.uni.wroc.pl.
