What is your preferred VCS?
in [ADA]
|
From: Warren on 29 Jul 2010 11:34 Thomas L�cke expounded in news:4c518fc7$0$272$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > On 2010-07-29 01:18, deadlyhead wrote: >> Since I trust the Ada community by and large when it comes to >> questions of robustness and cleanliness of code, it seems fitting that >> I might cast about for opinions on choosing a version control system. I realize that I am gradually becoming one in the minority these days, but I have always used and trusted cvs. It doesn't get in the way and does precisely what I need. The only time cvs has ever been a problem is when I wanted to rename something and retain it's history. But the simple answer to that is "don't do that". ;-) > I use Git for the following reasons: People who use git seem to like it. At some point, I need to spend some time making friends with it. > 1. _Very_ easy to get up and running. Setting up a Git server is about > as easy as it gets: > > git daemon --base-path=/some/where --user=git --detach I do like the idea of setting up my own git server without a lot of fuss- so I need to try that. Setting up a cvs server is admitedly a pain. But it's real easy now to create projects with cvs support on SF ;-) > 2. The documentation is superb (IMHO): http://git-scm.com/documentation We'll see. My main objection right now is taking the time to switch over. I have at least another 6-months of Ada05 code to write before it's 0.50 release. > 5. I feel I can trust it with my precious code. :o) This is number 1. I hate doing things more than once. >8/ > Actually this page describes my reasons pretty well: > > http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ You don't even acknowledge cvs there. Blasphemy! Warren
From: Thomas Løcke on 29 Jul 2010 11:41 On 2010-07-29 17:34, Warren wrote: >> Actually this page describes my reasons pretty well: >> >> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ > > You don't even acknowledge cvs there. Blasphemy! The above URL does not belong to me, nor is the content written by me. It just happened to convey my feelings about Git in a concise manner. Just so that's cleared up. I'd rather not take credit for some other guys website. :o) -- Regards, Thomas L�cke Email: tl at ada-dk.org Web: http:ada-dk.org IRC nick: ThomasLocke
From: Pascal Obry on 29 Jul 2010 12:01 Le 29/07/2010 01:18, deadlyhead a �crit : > My personal preference in the past has been GNU Arch. While its > interface was a bit cumbersome, I felt it was powerful, well-built and > ahead of its time. Unfortunately its long been a dormant project, > ever since Bzr forked from it and mutated, pulling the small community > that was forming around it away. Tom Lord's intended successor, revc, > stalled as well due to other circumstances, and finding copies of that > code base is like playing Hunt the Wumpus. > > Now, if going the distributed version control route (which is what I'm > going for), it seems that, these days, there are basically four > choices: > Git > Bazaar > Mercurial > Monotone For me it is Git. I'm using it since some years now. It is powerful and works pretty well in all contexts I have encountered. I have used a bit Mercurial (didn't like the old way to branch, forcing to have multiple directories, I understand that there is new feature to solve this). I have read some Bazaar documentation, it seems quite nice. But at the moment I won't switch because Git is very very very fast. I've used extensively CVS and Subversion in the past. I won't move back to those for any reasons. When I need to work with a Subversion repository I use git-svn which is a bi-directional tunnel. I'm working on many Open Source projects this way since some time now. I have also used "git bisect" two or three time already... This is another reason I won't leave Git (at least for the moment). Just my 2 cents. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net - http://v2p.fr.eu.org --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B
From: Warren on 29 Jul 2010 12:08 Thomas L�cke expounded in news:4c51a113$0$285$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > On 2010-07-29 17:34, Warren wrote: >>> Actually this page describes my reasons pretty well: >>> >>> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ >> >> You don't even acknowledge cvs there. Blasphemy! > > The above URL does not belong to me, nor is the content written by me. > It just happened to convey my feelings about Git in a concise manner. > > Just so that's cleared up. I'd rather not take credit for some other > guys website. :o) Still blasphemy ;-) Warren
From: deadlyhead on 29 Jul 2010 22:27
Thanks for all the replies! I'm glad nobody took this as an invitation to a flame war. ;-) From this small-but-elite sample, it seems like Monotone and Git are the routes to check out more deeply, if for no other reasons than speed and code security. Developers seem to trust them! Y'know, I've never actually gotten Bazaar to work on any system I've been running, whether from packages or source, GNU/Linux or Windows. Something in a library always seems to go wrong, and I'm just not interested enough to dig deeper. (I'm not particularly a fan of Python, which is why I haven't looked at Mercurial closely, either.) For those who like Monotone: is using a "real database" really that much of advantage? I'm a bit leery of such an opaque system being used to save my patches. Having physical file-system access to changes makes _me_ feel a bit more secure, and is something that I really like about GNU Arch. Is it the speed that makes it good? Or collision detection? I'm just curious; I've never had problems in those areas before, so I'm a bit insensitive. And those who like Git: Fast, cheap and easy... for some reason that seems _very_ Linus Torvalds-ish. :-) Still, Perl scripts intermingled with C? Perhaps I just need to get over that. I'll read over the Why Git is Better... site. It _does_ seem easy to try out. Perhaps I'll be able to look the other way when it comes to aesthetics. Sorry, Warren. CVS/SVN are right out. Their tools that I use to download source code from Sourceforge, but I just don't think I could handle actually _working_ with them. I've had better luck just archiving the *~ files saved by Emacs than I have with using SVN locally. |