Re: conversion to git

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Agreed.  There are a few other interesting contenders out there with
> significant install bases that probably won't go away soon (Mercurial is
> being backed by Sun, for example, and bzr by Canonical), and I expect
> Subversion will persist for quite a while for more centralized models.
> But at the moment, Git is picking up the most momentum, and I think we'll
> find the world converging on either Git or Subversion depending on the
> level of conservatism desired.

Very interesting.  If various projects flee from CVS to some other 
version control system then I hope that the projects I am involved 
with flee to the same system rather than many different systems. 
Like most people here, my hands are already full with development of 
projects and learning new version control systems loses valuable time.

I have looked at Subversion and find its installation to be rather 
unwieldly, requiring many additional packages to be installed of 
particular versions.  Subversion seems to use a rather exotic 
implementation rather than a fairly simple one like CVS.  It seems 
that GIT has the advantage in this regard.  I tried 'arch' but it did 
not compile on my machine at the time so I never looked back.

Maintainers of portable software need portable version control 
systems.  The version control system client needs to put up no fuss 
when compiled on a "bare" machine (often a porting target, for extra 
challenge) so that it is possible to get going right away.

A package which installs just one stand-alone command is much easier 
to deal with than a package which installs 132 different inter-twined 
commands.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/