[Orgmode] Re: Git repository
Carsten Dominik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am considering the idea to move the org development to a public git repository. This is not yet sure and official, but if you want to take a look at the current state of the repository, check out http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git \o/ :) I love git... everything else sucks by comparison :) Bernt ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: Git repository
On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: Carsten Dominik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am considering the idea to move the org development to a public git repository. This is not yet sure and official, but if you want to take a look at the current state of the repository, check out http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git \o/ :) I love git... everything else sucks by comparison :) As far as I can see, mercurial is pretty similar. But compared to cvs, svn, yes, I totally agree. No looking back. - Carsten ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
I'm a bazaar fan myself. I'd be curious if someone can point out where git is superior. ;] On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:39:50PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: Carsten Dominik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am considering the idea to move the org development to a public git repository. This is not yet sure and official, but if you want to take a look at the current state of the repository, check out http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git \o/ :) I love git... everything else sucks by comparison :) As far as I can see, mercurial is pretty similar. But compared to cvs, svn, yes, I totally agree. No looking back. - Carsten ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode -- Russell Adams[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID: 0x1160DCB3 http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/ Fingerprint:1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F 66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3 ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:39:50PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: Carsten Dominik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am considering the idea to move the org development to a public git repository. This would be superb! This is not yet sure and official, but if you want to take a look at the current state of the repository, check out http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git \o/ :) I love git... everything else sucks by comparison :) As far as I can see, mercurial is pretty similar. But compared to cvs, svn, yes, I totally agree. No looking back. Hear hear! mercurial is very similar, and the two of them seem to be streaks ahead of pretty much everything else. ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:13AM -0600, Russell Adams wrote: I'm a bazaar fan myself. I'd be curious if someone can point out where git is superior. ;] I can't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure that I saw reference to issues with the design of the underlying backend. The most obvious symptom of this would be the performance difference - git is well-known to cream pretty much everything except mercurial (which IIRC has a very similar design, minus the object packing). But I'm sure some quick googling would tell you a lot more than my hazy memories do :-) ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
I use mercurial just because it's supposed to work better with windows (work). -Hugo On Jan 31, 2008 1:34 PM, Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:39:50PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: Carsten Dominik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am considering the idea to move the org development to a public git repository. This would be superb! This is not yet sure and official, but if you want to take a look at the current state of the repository, check out http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git \o/ :) I love git... everything else sucks by comparison :) As far as I can see, mercurial is pretty similar. But compared to cvs, svn, yes, I totally agree. No looking back. Hear hear! mercurial is very similar, and the two of them seem to be streaks ahead of pretty much everything else. ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
When I was selecting a VC, I narrowed it down to Bazaar or Git. Being a prior Arch user, Bazaar fixed most of my complaints while using the same architecture. I understand Git's got quite a following, and addresses many of the same shortcomings of CVS that Bazaar and other distributed VC's (darcs, mercurial, etc) do. I have been curious what Git could offer over Bazaar, other than optimization for large numbers of users checking out. I recall Linus said that Bazaar was too slow. ;] My requirements were easy branching and merging, plus no special servers needed (ie: ftp/http/ssh). Ironically, I rarely use VC with Org files, because most of my files have a short lifespan (1 per project). On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:34:23PM +0100, Bastien wrote: Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:13AM -0600, Russell Adams wrote: I'm a bazaar fan myself. I'd be curious if someone can point out where git is superior. ;] I can't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure that I saw reference to issues with the design of the underlying backend. The most obvious symptom of this would be the performance difference - git is well-known to cream pretty much everything except mercurial (which IIRC has a very similar design, minus the object packing). But I'm sure some quick googling would tell you a lot more than my hazy memories do :-) FYI Eric S. Raymond is working on a paper where all dVCS systems will be compared. The Emacs dev team is waiting for his conclusions in order to decide what system should be used instead of the actual CVS. But there is more to consider than technical benchmarks since RMS also insist on preferring a tool that is part of the GNU project. Of course this doesn't affect the choice of a tool for Org, and git sounds like a good one to me. -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode -- Russell Adams[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID: 0x1160DCB3 http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/ Fingerprint:1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F 66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3 ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git repository
Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:13AM -0600, Russell Adams wrote: I'm a bazaar fan myself. I'd be curious if someone can point out where git is superior. ;] I can't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure that I saw reference to issues with the design of the underlying backend. The most obvious symptom of this would be the performance difference - git is well-known to cream pretty much everything except mercurial (which IIRC has a very similar design, minus the object packing). But I'm sure some quick googling would tell you a lot more than my hazy memories do :-) FYI Eric S. Raymond is working on a paper where all dVCS systems will be compared. The Emacs dev team is waiting for his conclusions in order to decide what system should be used instead of the actual CVS. But there is more to consider than technical benchmarks since RMS also insist on preferring a tool that is part of the GNU project. Of course this doesn't affect the choice of a tool for Org, and git sounds like a good one to me. -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: Git repository
And Russell Adams writes: When I was selecting a VC, I narrowed it down to Bazaar or Git. Being a prior Arch user, Bazaar fixed most of my complaints while using the same architecture. The Arch architecture doesn't fit everyone. In particular, a colleague and I used tla to shoot changes back and forth rapidly. We ended up with a history with at least 40% merge detritus. git doesn't bother recording merge information when the merge is trivial (a fast-forward of one history to match another). That fit our working model and my mental model better. Generally, git tracks contents rather than changes. That's how my head works as well, so most git functions do what I expect and want. Any technical differences are insignificant in comparison. Git and Mercurial archives can exist on the far side of a dumb transport like http. They're not ideal necessarily, but they function well enough. Jason ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
