Hi Brett,
you mean http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0610/28891.html
To be honest I also like the keyword substitution (the ID stuff, as I
can see quite fast how changed and when a file for the last time).
On the other hand, I understand the reasons for not having such an
"idiotic feat
Yeah.. I tried looking around for it, but all I could find was a bunch of
posts where people said it was a horrible idea. I understand the problems
with keyword expansion, I'd still like to use it.
The explanations of how to go around using keyword expansion with file
hashes and post commit script
you mean like SVN keywords Id, Author, etc ?
Regards,
Bogdan
Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Hey, I know this is outside of the scope of opensips.. but does git
> support keyword substitutions?
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> mailto:bog...@voice-system.r
Hey, I know this is outside of the scope of opensips.. but does git support
keyword substitutions?
Thanks,
Brett
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we are getting closed to first working code for OpenSIPS 2.0 (a proto
> core including config, tran
Bogdan,
Thanks for the link. I have to say after looking it over, git does look very
nice.
I do wonder, however, if conflict resolution is a bigger deal with a DVCS?
-Brett
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> if you look here http://git.or.cz/course/svn.
On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> But as already said,GIT and SVN are quite similar in concept and
> concepts, so it the learning process should be very easy.
If git is new than svn is more like CVS than anything else. DVCS's are _so_
much different than old school VCS's
Hi David,
I agree with you - SVN is well known by most of us, while git means
learning something new. Exactly this is why I pushed the question - if
there is something better (than SVN) out there, that may compensate (as
advantages) the task of learning it.
But as already said,GIT and SVN are
Hi Fabian,
That is interesting - thanks for the hint ;)
Regards,
Bogdan
Fabián Sellés Rosa wrote:
> You can offer both GIT and SVN with git-svn [1]. I think that git it's
> very more powerful and comfortable to use than subversion.
>
>
> [1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-s
Hi Brett,
if you look here http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html, GIT and SVN (at least
from user perspective) are very similar (as concepts and commands too).
I would go for GIT (even if never used it so far), mainly because it is
distributed - sometime SF is slow (when using from europe) and somet
My vote to this informal poll is to move forward with git.
Cheers,
Mario Stocco
Advantia VoIP Systems
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I'd go for Git, but having a svn mirror would also be nice so
>> that people can still fetch the source the 'old skool' way.
>>
>
> This cracks me up.. when did S
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
wrote:
> That said, I'd go for Git, but having a svn mirror would also be nice so
> that people can still fetch the source the 'old skool' way.
>
>
This cracks me up.. when did SVN become "old skool"? Where have I been?
I hear good things about
Sorry, my message seems to be cut by mailman (according to the
sourceforge archive) - resending full version:
I'd go with - "please no SVN" ;) (or at least keep an official mirror
in another repo type)
Why?
- We're keeping a number of patches that are company-specific, so will
never go into Opens
Hi,
El 02/03/10 19:18, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu escribió:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we are getting closed to first working code for OpenSIPS 2.0 (a proto
> core including config, transport, threading, reactor and dispatcher), we
> will upload the code the public SF repo.
>
> I would like to get some feedba
I'm certainly open to trying new things. But without looking into the
complexities of the newer systems, I know that they can get very complicated
very quickly. I do like, however, integrated code hosting, like you
suggested. But I know similar options are available with SVN.
Personally, I don't c
Brett,
From a user perspective then its not so difficult to learn a few extra
commands.
Most users I would imagine want to download the code and compile.
Although, I agree that SVN is by far more adopted.
I think going forward, companies like GitHub and BitBucket offer great
code hosting opti
Bogdan,
I personally really like SVN. It's widely accepted and well documented. I'm
sure that some newer code repo systems offer some really nice features, but
I'm curious what percent of the community has used newer repo types and
would be comfortable using them to their full potential (properly!)
You can offer both GIT and SVN with git-svn [1]. I think that git it's
very more powerful and comfortable to use than subversion.
[1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-svn.html
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://l
On 02.03.2010 18:18, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> SF offers the following options
> - SVN
> - git
> - mercurial
> - bazaar
>
> Should we keep SVN ? pros ? minuses ? something much better ?
I'd go with - "please no SVN" ;) (or at least keep an official mirror in
another repo type)
I have found that the speed of mercurial seems to be an issue with
larger sized project.
For example, try downloading adium: hg clone http://hg.adium.im/adium
My vote is for git.
Regards,
Norm
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we are getting closed to first working code for Open
Hi everyone,
As we are getting closed to first working code for OpenSIPS 2.0 (a proto
core including config, transport, threading, reactor and dispatcher), we
will upload the code the public SF repo.
I would like to get some feedback from you about what repo type to use -
as we have the opport
21 matches
Mail list logo
