On Sunday, February 12, 2012 22:45 CET, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
lars.sonchocky-helld...@hamburg.de wrote:
Am 12.02.2012 um 15:35 schrieb David Chisnall:
Hi Everyone,
For anyone who missed FOSDEM and needs something to do while GNA is down,
my slides are now online:
On 13.02.2012 09:11, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
I added the slides for my first two talks, and for Freds talk about the -gui
improvements.
Just to repeat myself, it was Eric's talk I only gave it. And I would
like to thank Eric once more for preparing it.
Fred
On 11.02.2012 19:23, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
Gregory Casamento wrote:
GNA is still down. I'm wondering if we shouldn't explore
alternatives at this point.
In either case once it does come back I'm going to set up another svn
repo locally that pulls the latest every day so that we always have
On 13 Feb 2012, at 09:53, Fred Kiefer wrote:
The Etoile people should have a lot of experience with git already. maybe
they even have some clever scripts to transfer the current SVN repository
into a git one. And most of all we would need a good tutorial to get old
fashioned developers
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:35, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org wrote:
The only disadvantage I've seen of Fossil compared to git or hg is that it
doesn't (yet) scale as well. For a comparatively small project like
GNUstep, this is not a significant issue (NetBSD is in the process of
Le 13 févr. 2012 à 13:26, Ivan Vučica a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:35, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org wrote:
The only disadvantage I've seen of Fossil compared to git or hg is that it
doesn't (yet) scale as well. For a comparatively small project like GNUstep,
this is not a
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:
Fred,
I believe this is the right move. A move to git would solve many
problems. I'm honestly concerned about staying with GNA in general.
This one week of downtime has really made me consider how safe our
code is on GNA.
I would say that, if savannah currently supports git, we may want to
Greg,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 18:03, Gregory Casamento
greg.casame...@gmail.comwrote:
If anyone has any objections to use GIT I would like to hear it now.
you mean apart from what David, Quentin and I have said? :-)
--
Ivan Vučica - i...@vucica.net
Indeed... they are good arguments against it. I think we can consider
git off of the table.
GC
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Ivan Vučica ivuc...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 18:03, Gregory Casamento greg.casame...@gmail.com
wrote:
If anyone has any objections to use
If anyone has any objections to use GIT I would like to hear it now.
I have one ... nobody seems to have anything good to say about it!
I think its main selling point is that it was one of the first distributed
systems ... But first is not best.
I think savannah supports both mercurial and
I don't think there are any positive reasons to pick git, so it's off the table.
GC
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Richard Frith-Macdonald
rich...@tiptree.demon.co.uk wrote:
If anyone has any objections to use GIT I would like to hear it now.
I have one ... nobody seems to have anything
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:30 AM, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org 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:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Gregory Casamento
greg.casame...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred,
I believe this is the right move. A move to git would solve many
problems. I'm honestly concerned about staying with GNA in general.
This one week of downtime has really made me consider how safe our
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:34:15PM -0500, Gregory Casamento wrote:
I don't think there are any positive reasons to pick git, so it's off the
table.
Oh well...
Actually, I quite like git; largely because of it being a collection of lots
of little tools, such that one can (if one desires)
Am 13.02.2012 um 18:38 schrieb Nicolas Roard:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:30 AM, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org 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:
On 13 Feb 2012, at 18:09, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
* only one .git subdirectory at the root, i.e. painless addition and
moving around of subdirectories
FYI: svn has this too in 1.7.
David
-- Sent from my STANTEC-ZEBRA
___
Discuss-gnustep
I also suggest to use git, and if possible github.com which is widely known
by most developers now, and it can attract more volunteers to work with us.
It is easy to manage, add people, fork repositories, has issues (bugs)
tacking tool, has wiki for ur project, all for free, as long as the project
Why don't we make voting about moving to git?
Do you want to move to git?
Pls answer yes or no.
My answer is: YES
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
On 13.02.2012 20:45, Amr Aboelela wrote:
Why don't we make voting about moving to git?
Do you want to move to git?
Pls answer yes or no.
My answer is: YES
Sorry, but I would prefer to gather a few more arguments and hands on
experience before voting about the move to another version
If there is a move to a DVCS, as I've already said, I'd support Mercurial.
Git is quite unfriendly, and GNUstep would be the only project I'd force
myself to use it with, and only in cases where I couldn't use hg-git.
There are problems with moving to any other VCS -- whether it's DVCS or
not.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:06:43PM +0100, Fred Kiefer wrote:
Sorry, but I would prefer to gather a few more arguments and hands on
experience before voting about the move to another version control
system, although it was me that suggested that move.
Well, if anyone is interested, I
On 13.02.2012 22:09, Eric Wasylishen wrote:
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
Am Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:09:41 -0700
schrieb Eric Wasylishen ewasylis...@gmail.com :
because it's slow with subversion
I'm very happy with tortoise-svn
--
mit freundlichen Gruessen/best regards
Pirmin Braun
seat-1 Software GmbH - Sinziger Str. 29a - 53424 Remagen
+49(0)2642 308288
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
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
greg.casame...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
What follows are my general thoughts on this whole discussion thusfar.
26 matches
Mail list logo
