[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-help-public] coreutils is moving to distributed version co
Re: [Savannah-help-public] coreutils is moving to distributed version control
Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:33:13 +0200
Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 01:30:51PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 02:08:10PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> Hi Sylvain,
>> Thank you for the quick reply.
> Sorry for the late reply this time, I had to travel a bit and then had
> some hard work when coming back :)
If you don't feel too bad about a tardy reply, I won't either.
When I get too busy, free software obligations get deferred.
>> With git or hg, it'd be similar. I'd develop using my own, local
>> repository (including `pull'ing from other contributor trees), and
>> occasionally `push'ing to the savannah repository. I presume I'd be
>> the only one with the right to push, just as is the case now (currently
>> I rsync to a host from which a savannah cron job pulls the cvs repo).
>> With git:
>> Pushing requires ssh access.
> Would a restricted (git-shell) access work as well? Or do you need
> direct rsync write access? Since I think git-shell would work with all
rsync write access is good, at least initially.
Unless there's some other way for me to transfer the original
.git repository, and potentially, to overwrite it with a new
one as I experiment and (likely, as I learn) want to start fresh.
> project types (unlike direct rsync write access), I would favor
> it. Similar to 'cvs server'.
>> > Didn't you try GNU Arch btw?
> Not trying it is not a very GNU attitude ;)
> Development seems pretty much stalled anyway :/
That's why I didn't invest in trying it.
If there's little-to-no active development, using it is just
asking for frustration.
>> I do have preliminary notes, but am swamped now.
>> If you ask again in a week or two, maybe I'll have something publishable.
> Ok (release early... ;)).
> You mentioned a lot of facts about git, but not on hg. Do you have
> something to add about it?
It looks nearly as usable as git, but with a more compact
set of commands (less of what git calls porcelain). That can be
good for the initial learning curve. With git, as a newbie, it's
not always easy to find the appropriate command (among 100+).
Mercurial has well-documented use cases.
Mercurial seems to have fewer active developers and fewer users.
Mercurial's RevlogNG changes seem to be a fine addition.
Now that tailor can convert between hg and git repositories (and mirror
git->hg, hg->git, and either to/from cvs) I figure it doesn't matter
much which we end up using.