Comments on: Version control systems http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/ From lost to the river Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:53:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: pete http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-562 pete Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:46:50 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-562 Wouldn't it be better to just have a uniform way of getting the latest revision from each of these repos? Then jhbuild could just depend on uni-vcs and use it to grab sources from any cvs, cvn, darcs, bzr, hg, git server. Preferably this would be implemented server side, but I suppose you could have a simple program that supports checkout for each... Wouldn’t it be better to just have a uniform way of getting the latest revision from each of these repos? Then jhbuild could just depend on uni-vcs and use it to grab sources from any cvs, cvn, darcs, bzr, hg, git server.

Preferably this would be implemented server side, but I suppose you could have a simple program that supports checkout for each…

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-561 Anonymous Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:11:28 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-561 We already have one VCS which could work for everyone. Which one is left as an exercise for the flame-retardant reader. We already have one VCS which could work for everyone. Which one is left as an exercise for the flame-retardant reader.

]]> By: Sean http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-560 Sean Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:33:06 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-560 I think you should require svn.gnome.org for module acceptatnce. It is ridiculous for you to have to do all this extra work dealing with everyone's particular version control preference. Sean I think you should require svn.gnome.org for module acceptatnce. It is ridiculous for you to have to do all this extra work dealing with everyone’s particular version control preference.

Sean

]]> By: Frederic Peters http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-559 Frederic Peters Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:49:23 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-559 Most of them are required for proposed modules (gtk-vnc needs mercurial, swfdec needs git, mousetweaks needs bzr, who needs darcs?); I can't remember if module acceptance requires to be under svn.gnome.org but that is certainly a plus. Most of them are required for proposed modules (gtk-vnc needs mercurial, swfdec needs git, mousetweaks needs bzr, who needs darcs?); I can’t remember if module acceptance requires to be under svn.gnome.org but that is certainly a plus.

]]> By: ovitters http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-558 ovitters Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:04:08 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-558 Suggest not to approve those spam trackbacks. Suggest not to approve those spam trackbacks.

]]> By: Gábor Farkas http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-557 Gábor Farkas Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:00:04 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/rodrigo/2007/11/09/version-control-systems/#comment-557 you see, once upon a time, there was a desktop-environment (KDE).. but some people thought that it's not ideal, so started to work on a different environment... and now we have two :) from the 6 you mentioned (CVS, subversion, git, mercurial, darcs and bzr), CVS will probably die out (will be replaced by SVN or something better everywhere) from the remaining 5, they can be divided into 2 groups: 1. centralized ones: svn 2. decentralized (distributed ones) : git, mercurial, darcs, bzr. from the decentralized ones, darcs is a fairly strange beast, but the remaining 3 are quite similar in how they approach the version-control-problem, so for an experienced user, switching between them shouldn't be a big problem. but on the other hand, they simply focus on different things (for example, git sacrifices practically everything (user-friendliness, windows-support (I_KNOW_THEY_ARE_WORKING_ON_IMPROVING_IT) etc) for performance), so as always, different people, different needs :) but on the positive side, between git/bzr/mercurial converting repositories is not that hard. you see, once upon a time, there was a desktop-environment (KDE).. but some people thought that it’s not ideal, so started to work on a different environment… and now we have two :)

from the 6 you mentioned (CVS, subversion, git, mercurial, darcs and bzr),

CVS will probably die out (will be replaced by SVN or something better everywhere)

from the remaining 5, they can be divided into 2 groups:

1. centralized ones: svn
2. decentralized (distributed ones) : git, mercurial, darcs, bzr.

from the decentralized ones, darcs is a fairly strange beast, but the remaining 3 are quite similar in how they approach the version-control-problem, so for an experienced user, switching between them shouldn’t be a big problem.

but on the other hand, they simply focus on different things (for example, git sacrifices practically everything (user-friendliness, windows-support (I_KNOW_THEY_ARE_WORKING_ON_IMPROVING_IT) etc) for performance), so as always, different people, different needs :)

but on the positive side, between git/bzr/mercurial converting repositories is not that hard.

]]>