On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Gwynne Raskind <gwy...@darkrainfall.org>wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:19 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > >>> I've not used git or hg much at all, but bzr has always satisfied my > >>> needs for DVCS, and has recently gotten much faster and more space > >>> efficient than it was in the past. > >> Sorry, but I think bzr is not a good fit. It's numerous changes to the > >> repository format make it impossible to use. It's either slow if you use > an old > >> version, or it's incompatible with old clients, let's say on an old > debian box. > >> > >> So I think php.net is better of using mercurial or git, but if we put > together > >> an RFC for a migration, I'll make sure bzr is covered as well in an > evaluation. > > Personally I would need a very good reason to add yet another DVCS to the > mix here! I've not found bzr as easy to link to from hg as git is. In fact > I've not actually got it to play at all as yet ... while hg does work into > git with only the problems of managing multiple repo's which is still work > in progress on both of them. > > > > That said, bzr does seem to handle the multiple repo's in a more user > friendly manor? It is just a pity that there is NOT a single target solution > for DVCS as everybody is currently scurrying off to their own corners :( The > barriers have already been drawn rather then there being concensus on some > sort of standard. > > > I think it's high time I tossed in my 1.682¥(JPY) (according to current > exchange rates)... > > I've been out of the PHP dev community for some months now, so anything I > say has to be taken with a grain of salt; I simply don't have the time right > now to catch up in any detail on the current state of affairs. > > That in mind, I was already disgusted with SVN by the time the move to it > was finished. At the risk of drawing a bit of fire, I have to say I agree > with Linus Torvalds' attitude about it, when he said (search "Linus Torvalds > subversion" on Google for the reference) that it was pointless and that CVS > couldn't be done right. > > SVN ditched things CVS had that should've been kept. Sub-repo management > (modules) and module merging/aliasing are the two I fought most with during > the migration; externals were a BAD patch on the problem! SVN was trying to > "do CVS right", but that simply doesn't hold together in the modern software > development world. Centralized servers by themselves are an old model. > Simple, but old. That's why DVCSs exist in the first place! > > So yes, I think PHP needs to move past Subversion, which is being > constantly held back by a model that's just too limited. The > branching/merging nightmare seals the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. > > Which DVCS do I think is best? > > Git is the massive favorite out there at the moment, according to my > Googling. I myself have never been able to fully get my head around it; > someone said earlier in the thread that it's "a swiss army knife with a boom > button", a sentiment I tend to agree with. Still, someone else also > correctly said that the huge majority of devs in PHP right now do use it, > and that can't be ignored. It is my observation that the Windows issues have > been largely solved in more recent times. GitHub itself (while I would > prefer something we host ourselves), is pretty easy to use. > > I don't know much about Mercurial, having never used it, so I can't comment > much on it. The fact that it continues to be prevalent at all versus Git > says something for it, but it falls down against the ubiquity argument, as a > quick glance suggests to me that the learning curve would actually be a bit > worse than Git's. Its Web interface makes me cringe. > > Bazaar is -my- current favorite, as its commands tend to translate almost > directly from SVN's and while a minority, it has a passionate following > (largely thanks to Ubuntu and MySQL, I think). But it being my personal > favorite doesn't mean much. I also find Launchpad a bit incomprehensible, > and Bazaar being written in Python feels a little odd to me. Don't we rely > enough already on competing languages? :) (Mercurial also suffers from > this.) > > I am not going to attempt any kind of conclusion based on technical merits > (branching/merging ability, sub-repo support, etc.), as I don't know what > the status of these features is, and even if I did, I no longer have enough > knowledge of PHP's current state to apply the knowledge. > > So, I have to base my thought on what the most people are going to have the > least trouble working with, and that's Git, hands down. There are more than > enough people around the community with the full knowledge necessary to > undertake the migration with minimum fuss; it's been pointed out that the > kind of massive manual balancing I had to do for CVS->SVN would be > completely absent. > > I just wish I didn't have to also admit that Trac is a really great project > management system. Unless things have changed drastically since I was last > active, PHP still needs one. ^^; > > -- Gwynne > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > just a little comment on the last statement: do you know about mtrack? it is a trac "clone" written in php by Wez Tyrael
