What is your preferred VCS?
in [ADA]
|
From: Karel Miklav on 30 Jul 2010 16:56 deadlyhead wrote: > For those who like Monotone: is using a "real database" really that > much of advantage? Where the hell this meme still draws the power from? I have not seen a real application with a bunch of files at its core for a long time and I do not really believe you are not aware of advantages of database over the filesystem. The whole quoted sentence is probably a blob inserted by a benevolent humorous virus, so let's just take a laugh and move on. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Pascal Obry on 31 Jul 2010 03:29 Karel, > deadlyhead wrote: >> For those who like Monotone: is using a "real database" really that >> much of advantage? > > Where the hell this meme still draws the power from? I have not seen a > real application with a bunch of files at its core for a long time and I > do not really believe you are not aware of advantages of database over > the filesystem. The whole quoted sentence is probably a blob inserted by > a benevolent humorous virus, so let's just take a laugh and move on. To me it really depends on the application. For sure database is lot more powerful in general. But in the case of a hierarchical data (like git does) the file system is really good too because it is a hierarchical database. 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: Alex R. Mosteo on 31 Jul 2010 07:58 deadlyhead wrote: > (...) > 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 > > People/projects seem to like these for different reasons, but so far I > haven't gotten excited by any of them. I'm late to the party, but FWIW. I tried a bit of git and mercurial some months ago, when moving to DVCS for the first time. I think I could get used to any of these two with sufficient exposure. However, mercurial felt like a natural transition from svn, whereas with git there was always a nagging feeling of uneasiness of being forgetting some option or switch that could ruin my branching/merging. I kept going back to tutorials and examples for reassurance. With mercurial I feel that I have the control more easily. Admittedly, I didn't start with the simplest projects, but tracking remotes in svn with non-standard configurations, which complicated a bit the first steps. OTOH, I prefer the git way of managing remotes over mercurial hand-editing of (unversioned!?) files. And git-svn is great, as someone already said. All in all, mercurial was my natural fit, but it seemed less featured than git. And gitk is really nice. Mercurial port is several years old, I think.
From: Stephen Leake on 31 Jul 2010 11:20 Pascal Obry <pascal(a)obry.net> writes: > Le 30/07/2010 04:27, deadlyhead a écrit : >> 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. > > Only git-svn is in perl at the moment. The rest is pure C and some > scripts. "scripts" in what language? I guess you mean bash, but it would help to be precise. -- -- Stephe
From: Stephen Leake on 31 Jul 2010 11:28
deadlyhead <deadlyhead(a)gmail.com> writes: > For those who like Monotone: is using a "real database" really that > much of advantage? It gives high-level atomic transactions. Either you commit _all_ files, or you commit none. Others have talked about being able to do SQL queries. That's not as useful as it might seem; almost everything in the database is a gzipped blob, so it's not easy to search on. But some things are plain text (attributes, author names); doing SQL on those can be useful. Personally, I've only resorted to SQL when something was broken. I quickly fix the real bug in the monotone C++ code, so SQL is becoming less usefull over time :). > 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. That is a point. However, you can in fact retrieve any file intact from the database via mtn automate commands. Once you trust that, the atomic transactions make it worth it. > Is it the speed that makes it good? Speed is very subjective. On most systems I use, for the workspaces I have, monotone is "fast enough"; it doesn't get in the way of my normal work flow. -- -- Stephe |