Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
I don't think it is time to move wholesale to something like Mercurial
or bzr. I would prefer it if all of the Enthought-hosted projects
moved to the (new) system at once, which is not going to happen in the
short term (but long term of course it's an open
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram
This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only
reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that
Mercurial just uses whatever external merge program it can find. So
the file-level merging sounds like it
Bill Baxter wrote:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram
This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only
reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that
Mercurial just uses whatever external merge program it can find. So
the
Robert Kern wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram
This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only
reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that
Mercurial just uses whatever external merge program it can
David Cournapeau wrote:
Does good merging only depends on the above ? Martin Pool, one of the
bzr programmer, wrote this article two years ago:
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/derivatives.html
which I found both enlightening and easy to follow.
My terminology was
On Jan 6, 2008 6:38 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram
This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only
reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that
Mercurial just
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 6:38 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram
This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only
reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that
David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com writes:
The open solaris project documented their choice, too:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/history/
Contrary to mozilla, solaris is using hg as the main VCS.
Mozilla will be using mercurial (hg) too, but decided to do the full
On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 AM, Rafael Villar Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com writes:
The open solaris project documented their choice, too:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/history/
Contrary to mozilla, solaris is using hg as the main
David Cournapeau wrote:
[...]
To be frank, I did not realize that mercurial was that popular (which
makes it more of an argument than I initially thought: I assumed -
wrongly it seems - that both had a similar user-base)
David,
One reason that they apparently do not is that mercurial has been
Robert Kern wrote:
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
I don't think it is time to move wholesale to something like Mercurial
or bzr. I would prefer it if all of the Enthought-hosted projects
moved to the (new) system at once, which is not going to happen in the
short term (but long term of
On Jan 4, 2008, at 13:58 , Fernando Perez wrote:
My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly
because sage and sympy already use it, two projects I'm likely to
interact a lot with and that are squarely in line with the
ipython/numpy/scipy/matplotlib world. Since they
On Jan 5, 2008 12:08 PM, David M. Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 13:58 , Fernando Perez wrote:
My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly
because sage and sympy already use it, two projects I'm likely to
interact a lot with and that are squarely in
On Jan 5, 2008 8:15 PM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 12:08 PM, David M. Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 13:58 , Fernando Perez wrote:
My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly
because sage and sympy already use it, two
David M. Cooke wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 13:58 , Fernando Perez wrote:
My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly
because sage and sympy already use it, two projects I'm likely to
interact a lot with and that are squarely in line with the
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:00:21PM -0600, Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
I suspect there are others with serious reservations about jumping off
of SVN just now (just when a lot of people have finally figured out how
to use it).
I recall something you said to David last week, regarding merges with
I'd like to briefly provide a different perspective on this question,
which is not a technical one but a more social/process one.
It seems to me (but I could be wrong; this is opinion, not research!)
that a DVCS encourages a more open participation model for newcomers.
Since anyone with a
On Jan 6, 2008 8:25 AM, Stefan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recall something you said to David last week, regarding merges with
SVN: that a person never knows how to do it until *after* you've done
it! We often make branches in scipy and numpy, and stand a lot to
gain from a
Fernando Perez fperez.net at gmail.com writes:
Incidentally, the emacs guys seem to be worrying about the same thing:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/85893
If they actually do the work of comparing tools, that work may be
useful for us. I'm pretty sure that any tool that can
On Jan 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Barker wrote:
hmmm. Everyone posting so far seems to be positive on this idea, but I'm
not so sure. A few thoughts:
1) change is bad. It may be worth it, but this decision needs to be made
very differently than if we
Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
David M. Cooke wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 13:58 , Fernando Perez wrote:
My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly
because sage and sympy already use it, two projects I'm likely to
interact a lot with and that are squarely in line with the
As for me, I would wait until DVCS became more popular than svn. Jump
often from one VSC to another isn't a good idea, moreover, it's not
clear for now which DVCS will suppress others and became standard (being
installed in many OS by default).
Also, I would prefer (for example my openopt)
dmitrey wrote:
As for me, I would wait until DVCS became more popular than svn. Jump
often from one VSC to another isn't a good idea, moreover, it's not
clear for now which DVCS will suppress others and became standard (being
installed in many OS by default).
Also, I would prefer (for
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 12:56 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
There is a mercurial plugin for trac.
as well as a bzr one. The problem is more related to performance issues
(cheap things in svn are not cheap in DVCS, and vice-versa). For
example,
Hi,
First things first, happy new year to all !
Having recently felt the pain to use subversion merge, I was
wondering about people's feeling on moving away from subversion and
using a better system, ala mercurial or bzr (I will talk about bzr
because that's the one I know the most,
dmitrey wrote:
As for me, I would wait until DVCS became more popular than svn. Jump
often from one VSC to another isn't a good idea, moreover, it's not
clear for now which DVCS will suppress others and became standard (being
installed in many OS by default).
I don't think one will become
Neal Becker wrote:
There is a mercurial plugin for trac.
as well as a bzr one. The problem is more related to performance issues
(cheap things in svn are not cheap in DVCS, and vice-versa). For
example, the trac-bzr plugin is really slow for timelines (it takes
almost one second on a local
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:54:13PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
I certainly agree that changing the VCS is a big change, and requires a
lot of thinking, though. I am not suggesting to change for the next week.
In the mean time, do you want to tell us more about how you use bzr with
svn. This
There is a mercurial plugin for trac.
___
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:54:13PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
I certainly agree that changing the VCS is a big change, and requires a
lot of thinking, though. I am not suggesting to change for the next week.
In the mean time, do you want to tell us more about how
Imagine the pain in the other direction, which was my experience :) I
actually did not believe at first that it was so bad, and thought I was
doing something wrong. At least, it certainly convinced me that SVN was
not easier than DVCS.
It would made me sick. :)
I am not familiar with sympy:
In the mean time, do you want to tell us more about how you use bzr with
svn. This seems like a good transitory option.
Once you installed bzr-svn, you can import the whole scikits trunk using
the svn-import command.
This works OK for Linux, but for Windows, the packages needed by bzr-svn
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:54:13PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
I certainly agree that changing the VCS is a big change, and requires a
lot of thinking, though. I am not suggesting to change for the next week.
In the mean time, do you want to tell us more about how
On Jan 4, 2008 12:56 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
There is a mercurial plugin for trac.
as well as a bzr one. The problem is more related to performance issues
(cheap things in svn are not cheap in DVCS, and vice-versa). For
example, the trac-bzr plugin
Hi Matthieu
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:26:52PM +0100, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
Beside this, I'm starting to use bazaar (in fact it's the successor of arch)
for a small project of mine hosted on launchpad.net, and it works
great. As
Note that bzr refers to bazaar-ng (new generation), which is
Hi David
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:24:04PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
First things first, happy new year to all !
Happy new year! It's been great so far :)
Having recently felt the pain to use subversion merge, I was
wondering about people's feeling on moving away from
On Jan 4, 2008 11:26 PM, Matthieu Brucher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the mean time, do you want to tell us more about how you use bzr with
svn. This seems like a good transitory option.
Once you installed bzr-svn, you can import the whole scikits trunk using
the svn-import command.
On Jan 5, 2008 12:22 AM, Stefan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:24:04PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
First things first, happy new year to all !
Happy new year! It's been great so far :)
Having recently felt the pain to use subversion
In general I think that this is a good direction to go in. My general
preference would be to use git or mercurial.
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but since I won't get a
chance to catch up on this thread until much later today -- here are
my concerns:
1. We use as vanilla a
On Jan 5, 2008 3:58 AM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:45 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David is 100% right, I fully support this. I would be just repeating
what he says.
Charles actually said another point in favor of Mercurial - it works
on
On Jan 4, 2008 12:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 3:58 AM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:45 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David is 100% right, I fully support this. I would be just repeating
what he says.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 1:30 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like Mercurial and use it a lot, but I'm not convinced we have enough
developers and code to justify the pain of changing the VCS at this time.
On Jan 5, 2008 3:56 AM, Jarrod Millman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general I think that this is a good direction to go in. My general
preference would be to use git or mercurial.
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but since I won't get a
chance to catch up on this thread until
On Jan 4, 2008 11:45 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David is 100% right, I fully support this. I would be just repeating
what he says.
Charles actually said another point in favor of Mercurial - it works
on Windows (at least people say so), while git not that much (at least
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:45:06PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Charles actually said another point in favor of Mercurial - it works
on Windows (at least people say so), while git not that much (at least
people say so). I never use Windows myself, so I don't know.
Note that bzr also runs under
On Jan 4, 2008 12:52 PM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 12:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the sumpy uses it reason, it is definitely a factor.
But I would rather have a more thorough study on the merits of each
system. For example,
On Jan 5, 2008 4:51 AM, Russell E. Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article
I am a bit puzzled by the vitriol about merging with svn. svn's built in
merge is a joke but svnmerge.py works reasonably well (especially newer
versions of svnmerge.py; I use rev 26317 and the version included in the
On Jan 4, 2008 12:52 PM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 12:21 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the sumpy uses it reason, it is definitely a factor.
But I would rather have a more thorough study on the merits of each
system. For example,
On Jan 4, 2008 2:05 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 5:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A quick google for benchmarks show that a year ago, hg was a bit faster
and
generated smaller repositories than bzr, but I don't think the
difference
On Jan 5, 2008 5:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick google for benchmarks show that a year ago, hg was a bit faster and
generated smaller repositories than bzr, but I don't think the difference is
enough to matter.
Forget a year ago, because as far as bzr is
I have been using mercurial for some time now. I just discovered that
the introductory documentation has been improved and consolidated in an
online book-in-progress: http://hgbook.red-bean.com/hgbook.html
Eric
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 5:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL
On Jan 5, 2008 6:17 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 10:05 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 5:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick google for benchmarks show that a year ago, hg was a bit faster
and
On Jan 4, 2008 2:17 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Instead of devising our own arguments, read this:
http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrVsHg
and the mercurial response therein.
I saw that, but thought it is more marketing than technical. Turned me off,
actually, last thing I want
I agree. I find those pages to be really bad, actually. To have better
informations, you should get into the mailing list of the respective
projects.
Just to extend this holiday special:
I found the mozilla DVCS discussion informative:
On Jan 5, 2008 6:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:05 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 5:36 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A quick google for benchmarks show that a year ago, hg was a bit faster
and
On Jan 5, 2008 6:41 AM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:17 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Instead of devising our own arguments, read this:
http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrVsHg
and the mercurial response therein.
I saw that, but
Charles R Harris wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:05 PM, David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bzr is not tied to linux.
It is, in that development is funded by Canonical, but I haven't used
either on windows, so don't have any idea how they compare in that regard.
hmmm. Everyone posting so far seems to be positive on this idea, but I'm
not so sure. A few thoughts:
1) change is bad. It may be worth it, but this decision needs to be made
very differently than if we were starting from scratch.
2) apparently svn merge sucks compared to other merge
Chris Barker wrote:
hmmm. Everyone posting so far seems to be positive on this idea, but I'm
not so sure. A few thoughts:
1) change is bad. It may be worth it, but this decision needs to be made
very differently than if we were starting from scratch.
2) apparently svn merge sucks
59 matches
Mail list logo
