[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server
From: |
Daniel Carrera |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:21:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) |
Bruce Stephens wrote:
I don't know. Someone suggested that the space you get might be
mounted noexec (so preventing you from running the binary). Depends
on the provider, I imagine, and I've no idea what's typical.
In truth, I don't know either.
Can you recommend such a system? What I find attractive about Mtn,
besides being easy to use, is the digital signatures.
I think the three major ones (bzr, git, mercurial) all support using
dumb servers. None of them (as far as I know) support signatures in
quite the pervasive way that monotone does. All support signing some
things (signing tags, typically).
Yeah, I was just reading up on those three (I already know Darcs and it
doesn't use signatures). A lot of people say that Git is complicated and
poorly documented, so I'm ignoring Git. Mercurial and Bzr both look easy
to use, but like you say, they don't seem to have digital sigs, or the
over-all security of Monotone.
Ease of use probably varies according to taste. Viewed from a
distance they're all (disappointingly) equivalent, storing DAGs of
snapshots.
DAG?
They differ more in the details, and which details matter probably
varies.
Yeah. Ex: Linus cares a lot about quickly merging large trees, Mozilla
cares about decent performance on Win32 (so they chose Mercurial), etc.
For me, desirable features include ease of use, security and being able
to push changes to a live web host. Mercurial seems to have the 'push' part:
hg push ssh://address@hidden/public_html/main
So, if indeed I can't run Monotone on the server, I'll have to balance
out Monotone's signatures against Mercurial's push. I'm not sure what
I'd pick, but I think I'd lean toward the push (Mercurial).
I work in an environment where we do code review (for every
change), so git's idiosyncratic (and awkwardly named) index, and
ability to revise commits (and ultimately automatically discard older
versions) is natural and valuable: it provides better support for the
workflow we used with CVS (preparing patches in a checkout, emailing
them out, then often revising them before integration).
Interesting. I didn't know about that about Git. As a sole developer
that feature doesn't apply to me. But it's interesting.
Do you use Monotone anywhere? I ask because you are, after all, in a
Monotone mailing list.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Re: [Monotone-devel] Monotone server, Phil Hannent, 2008/10/09
Re: [Monotone-devel] Monotone server, Stephen Leake, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Monotone server, Daniel Carrera, 2008/10/09
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Bruce Stephens, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Daniel Carrera, 2008/10/09
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Bruce Stephens, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server,
Daniel Carrera <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Bruce Stephens, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Daniel Carrera, 2008/10/09
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Lapo Luchini, 2008/10/09
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Bruce Stephens, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Daniel Carrera, 2008/10/09
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Bruce Stephens, 2008/10/09
[Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server, Lapo Luchini, 2008/10/09