Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
I have used cvs and later svn, and never really have needed DVCS. Still, I have projects in both GitHub and BitBucket using Git (I never got around using mercurial - so I don't know which is better). CVS was quirky and buggy, but I never had any problems with SVN which is straightforward and easy to work with. Migrating to git, on the other hand, and as has been previously mentioned took some effort - but this is mostly because I come from the simplicity of SVN. The trick is thinking in terms of your local repo. Some time ago I made some research on github vs bitbucket and at the time we found that bitbucket was inferior as a product but we ended up going for that because of the private repositories. After the UI rewrite of Bitbucket in 2012 - I find the two mostly equivalent even if the bitbucket wiki is pretty unsophisticated (so is GutHubs but at least I have never lost pages in the GitHub one). Greg feels uneasy because of the trend factor - but both GIT (isn't it used for the Linux kernel?) and github are well proven projects with a community the size of St. Petersburg. Either way you go (git vs mercurial, github vs bitbucket) I will be the first one to celebrate the fact that RDKit is moving away from sourceforge and its crappy, lousy, 2001 look and feel, unresponsive, Ad-ridden, unusable interface. For the talk I gave at the user meeting I had to count the number of posts I created, and I ended up counting them manually in the archives as there was no obvious way how to do it. To this day that interface makes me cringe. p.s. I agree with Eddie, +1 for Git changes the way you think, the same thing learning functional programming would do to you. - Jean-Paul Ebejer Early Stage Researcher On 2 February 2013 07:00, Eddie Cao cao.yi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, As a switcher, I feel I should share my experience. I am never a power user of any VCS, but I've used RCS, CVS, Subversion, Mercurial and Git, and my level is always best characterized as *barely enough to get work done*. I chose Mercurial instead of Git during my first encounter with the concept of DVCS, mostly because the belief that they two are pretty much the same, and also, because I am a Python person, choosing Mercurial seems like a loyal thing to do. I sticked with Mercurial for over three years, and resisted the hype around Git and Github. My understanding of Git stayed at the level of believing rebase is evil, and hg is safer, staging area solves a problem I don't have, and mercurial can do that too, with these extensions. This was until my wife started to use Git for work, and rave about it. So I checked it out. And I switched. Not because there are things that are inherently impossible in Mercurial, but there is a culture component of Git that emerges around an open door design (which Python does too and proudly labels it as *a language for adults*). For example, Git infuses this attitude into you that commit quality is as important as your code quality, and Git is optimized to make beautiful commits. With Git, you tend to *compose* and *edit* commits carefully as you would write beautiful and elegant code. Have uncommitted changes in one file deal with two irrelevant bugs? Easily make two separate commits by picking lines to commit. Have uncommitted changes but there is an emergent bug to fix? Avoid a half-baked commit by simply stashing your changes and reverse it when you are done with the bugfix. Some seems to fear the power to rewrite history, but it is a very powerful tool. Have a commit that just corrects a typo? You can combine it with an earlier commit. Regret that the summary of a previous commit is not clear enough? You can edit that message. The learning curve is absolutely steeper for Git for people with prior knowledge of other VCS. This is mostly because Linus' vision about Git is a file system on top of a file systemhttp://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals and he did not try to emulate existing VCS systems. However, if you want to support real distributed workflow, I would argue Git and Mercurial require the same amount of learning, as you could see in the comparison in PEP 374http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/#one-off-checkout. But if you care about commit history as much as you care about code quality - and I believe commit history is essential in distributed collaborative workflow enabled by a DVCS - then you will appreciate the Git workflow and the Git way. And bonus: Git changes the way you think, the same thing learning functional programming would do to you. Regards, Eddie On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Patrick Fuller wrote: Seconding Markus - My biggest issue switching from svn to git was honestly the word checkout. It means two different things between them, and I found myself doing stupid things all the time. Outside of that, and the weird staging area thing I never got a hold of but can be easily skipped, I didn't think it was
[Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
I think it's time to move the primary RDKit codebase from svn to a distributed version control system.[1] This change is intended to make it a lot easier for others to work with/contribute to the RDKit. It seems like git is winning/has won the argument about which DVCS is the one to use, so that part seems easy. Since I'm pretty unhappy with the new sf.net bug tracker, I would like to move to a new issue tracker as well. The next question is where to host the git repository and the tracker. There are three obvious options here: github, bitbucket, and google code. All three offer bug trackers and wikis. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions, opinions, rants, etc. on which of these possibilities I should (or should not) choose. -greg [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Hi Greg, I am using bitbucket for my personal projects and it is doing this perfectly fine. However, i keep these private so i have no experience with the public interface. Cheers, Hans On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:54, Greg Landrum greg.land...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's time to move the primary RDKit codebase from svn to a distributed version control system.[1] This change is intended to make it a lot easier for others to work with/contribute to the RDKit. It seems like git is winning/has won the argument about which DVCS is the one to use, so that part seems easy. Since I'm pretty unhappy with the new sf.net bug tracker, I would like to move to a new issue tracker as well. The next question is where to host the git repository and the tracker. There are three obvious options here: github, bitbucket, and google code. All three offer bug trackers and wikis. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions, opinions, rants, etc. on which of these possibilities I should (or should not) choose. -greg [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Hi Greg, I use mercurial and bitbucket as you may know, hg because I prefer its workflow compared to git and bitbucket because of the unlimited private repositories (and I have quite a few). I would suggest github as host if you choose git - it has the most features of all websites in my opinion. Cheers, Adrian On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Hans De Winter h...@silicos-it.com wrote: Hi Greg, I am using bitbucket for my personal projects and it is doing this perfectly fine. However, i keep these private so i have no experience with the public interface. Cheers, Hans On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:54, Greg Landrum greg.land...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's time to move the primary RDKit codebase from svn to a distributed version control system.[1] This change is intended to make it a lot easier for others to work with/contribute to the RDKit. It seems like git is winning/has won the argument about which DVCS is the one to use, so that part seems easy. Since I'm pretty unhappy with the new sf.net bug tracker, I would like to move to a new issue tracker as well. The next question is where to host the git repository and the tracker. There are three obvious options here: github, bitbucket, and google code. All three offer bug trackers and wikis. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions, opinions, rants, etc. on which of these possibilities I should (or should not) choose. -greg [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Github has a lot more features than its competitors, and they're growing rapidlyhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57468899-93/github-raises-$100-million-from-andreessen-horowitz/. To help, look at a big project that's already using it (like three.jshttps://github.com/mrdoob/three.js) to try to envision what RDKit would look like on it. I'll admit that git's terminology is weird coming from svn / cvs, but you get used to it. And I like the distributed model a lot more. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Igor Filippov [Contr] igor.filip...@nih.gov wrote: Rant I tried working with git naively thinking I'll figure it out on the go (after long working with CVS and SVN). Nothing doing. Then I found a few tutorials. The description of detached heads and other arcana made my brain explode. Why does version control need to be so complex? Do we really need it for projects not involving thousands of developers and millions lines of code? /Rant On 2/1/2013 3:54 AM, Greg Landrum wrote: I think it's time to move the primary RDKit codebase from svn to a distributed version control system.[1] This change is intended to make it a lot easier for others to work with/contribute to the RDKit. It seems like git is winning/has won the argument about which DVCS is the one to use, so that part seems easy. Since I'm pretty unhappy with the new sf.net bug tracker, I would like to move to a new issue tracker as well. The next question is where to host the git repository and the tracker. There are three obvious options here: github, bitbucket, and google code. All three offer bug trackers and wikis. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions, opinions, rants, etc. on which of these possibilities I should (or should not) choose. -greg [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Hi, I am pretty new to RDKit and so far so good, it works quite well - thanks to Greg and to the community for the great work! As far as DVCS, I personally use Mercurial. It works fine for me, although I have to admit I use it pretty much in an SVN-like style just with an additional local repo. The hginit tutorial (http://hginit.com/) is an easy read and get's you going with the basics without being full with 'two headed repository monsters' (though they did get a mentioning :). I have set up a few repos on Bitbucket as well in the past and those worked well too, for small stuff at least. I've never used git/github or googlecode so I can't really compare. Best, Dimitar From: Greg Landrum greg.land...@gmail.com To: RDKit Discuss rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 3:54 Subject: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code I think it's time to move the primary RDKit codebase from svn to a distributed version control system.[1] This change is intended to make it a lot easier for others to work with/contribute to the RDKit. It seems like git is winning/has won the argument about which DVCS is the one to use, so that part seems easy. Since I'm pretty unhappy with the new sf.net bug tracker, I would like to move to a new issue tracker as well. The next question is where to host the git repository and the tracker. There are three obvious options here: github, bitbucket, and google code. All three offer bug trackers and wikis. I'm looking for feedback, suggestions, opinions, rants, etc. on which of these possibilities I should (or should not) choose. -greg [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss-- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
I started with CVS, switch to svn, tried to learn git which made my head explode. However, for some odd reasons I didn't gave up on git, and one day it make click. Since then I switched everything to git and never looked back. I agree, when you come from CVS and svn, git changes your way of thinking. It is probably easier to start right away with git - but its concept is more logic. On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:23:57 -0500, greg landrum greg.land...@gmail.com wrote: You ask an excellent question. I will provide my two cents, from the context of someone who has been saying DVCS solves a problem I don't have for a couple years now. There is definitely a big learning curve for those of us who have been using cvs/svn for years (I think it may be more difficult for an svn user to switch to fit than for someone who has never used version control to learn it); that's a strike against git. It's also super trendy, which makes me nervous. Finally, a lot of the criticisms that git zealots make of svn are poorly informed and/or based on old versions of svn. (Finally+1: the iOS spelling correction really seems to hate git) Having said all that, git and related systems do make it much easier for other people to contribute to an open source project because they allow the others to use source control to track their changes without them having to have commit access to the main code repository. There are some other advantages (among them having access to version control while offline) but that one is just a giant plus. Technically people could also accomplish that using svn and a vendor branch, but that is a pretty large pain and would not help with merging their changes/additions into the core when the time comes for that. -greg On Feb 1, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Igor Filippov [Contr] igor.filip...@nih.gov wrote: Rant I tried working with git naively thinking I'll figure it out on the go (after long working with CVS and SVN). Nothing doing. Then I found a few tutorials. The description of detached heads and other arcana made my brain explode. Why does version control need to be so complex? Do we really need it for projects not involving thousands of developers and millions lines of code? /Rant -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
[1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. My $0.02 on this -- since I’m migrating Open Babel from SVN at sf.net to GitHub. GitHub offers very nice “transparent” SVN access: https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion Hope that helps, -Geoff -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Oh man... If OB is doing it, then we have to do something different! ;-) On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Geoffrey Hutchison geoff.hutchi...@gmail.com wrote: [1] I believe it should be possible to continue to keep the svn repository in sync with the git code base in the same way that the current github RDKit version is kept in sync with the sf.net svn repo. My $0.02 on this -- since I’m migrating Open Babel from SVN at sf.net to GitHub. GitHub offers very nice “transparent” SVN access: https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion Hope that helps, -Geoff -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
Re: [Rdkit-discuss] looking for suggestions: github vs bitbucket vs google code
Hi, As a switcher, I feel I should share my experience. I am never a power user of any VCS, but I've used RCS, CVS, Subversion, Mercurial and Git, and my level is always best characterized as barely enough to get work done. I chose Mercurial instead of Git during my first encounter with the concept of DVCS, mostly because the belief that they two are pretty much the same, and also, because I am a Python person, choosing Mercurial seems like a loyal thing to do. I sticked with Mercurial for over three years, and resisted the hype around Git and Github. My understanding of Git stayed at the level of believing rebase is evil, and hg is safer, staging area solves a problem I don't have, and mercurial can do that too, with these extensions. This was until my wife started to use Git for work, and rave about it. So I checked it out. And I switched. Not because there are things that are inherently impossible in Mercurial, but there is a culture component of Git that emerges around an open door design (which Python does too and proudly labels it as a language for adults). For example, Git infuses this attitude into you that commit quality is as important as your code quality, and Git is optimized to make beautiful commits. With Git, you tend to compose and edit commits carefully as you would write beautiful and elegant code. Have uncommitted changes in one file deal with two irrelevant bugs? Easily make two separate commits by picking lines to commit. Have uncommitted changes but there is an emergent bug to fix? Avoid a half-baked commit by simply stashing your changes and reverse it when you are done with the bugfix. Some seems to fear the power to rewrite history, but it is a very powerful tool. Have a commit that just corrects a typo? You can combine it with an earlier commit. Regret that the summary of a previous commit is not clear enough? You can edit that message. The learning curve is absolutely steeper for Git for people with prior knowledge of other VCS. This is mostly because Linus' vision about Git is a file system on top of a file system and he did not try to emulate existing VCS systems. However, if you want to support real distributed workflow, I would argue Git and Mercurial require the same amount of learning, as you could see in the comparison in PEP 374. But if you care about commit history as much as you care about code quality - and I believe commit history is essential in distributed collaborative workflow enabled by a DVCS - then you will appreciate the Git workflow and the Git way. And bonus: Git changes the way you think, the same thing learning functional programming would do to you. Regards, Eddie On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Patrick Fuller wrote: Seconding Markus - My biggest issue switching from svn to git was honestly the word checkout. It means two different things between them, and I found myself doing stupid things all the time. Outside of that, and the weird staging area thing I never got a hold of but can be easily skipped, I didn't think it was all that terrible of a switch. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Markus Sitzmann sitzm...@helix.nih.gov wrote: I started with CVS, switch to svn, tried to learn git which made my head explode. However, for some odd reasons I didn't gave up on git, and one day it make click. Since then I switched everything to git and never looked back. I agree, when you come from CVS and svn, git changes your way of thinking. It is probably easier to start right away with git - but its concept is more logic. On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:23:57 -0500, greg landrum greg.land...@gmail.com wrote: You ask an excellent question. I will provide my two cents, from the context of someone who has been saying DVCS solves a problem I don't have for a couple years now. There is definitely a big learning curve for those of us who have been using cvs/svn for years (I think it may be more difficult for an svn user to switch to fit than for someone who has never used version control to learn it); that's a strike against git. It's also super trendy, which makes me nervous. Finally, a lot of the criticisms that git zealots make of svn are poorly informed and/or based on old versions of svn. (Finally+1: the iOS spelling correction really seems to hate git) Having said all that, git and related systems do make it much easier for other people to contribute to an open source project because they allow the others to use source control to track their changes without them having to have commit access to the main code repository. There are some other advantages (among them having access to version control while offline) but that one is just a giant plus. Technically people could also accomplish that using svn and a vendor branch, but that is a pretty large pain and would not help with merging their changes/additions into the core when the time comes for that. -greg
