On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Bruce Southey <bsout...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:38 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Gael Varoquaux >> <gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:05:55PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: >>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >>>> No need to apologize, I think I used the work bashing inappropriately >>>> - I just wanted to say that the only way to understand the differences >>>> between the tools is to use them. Reading about them will only confuse >>>> you in my own experience. For example, I tried git once a long time >>>> ago (during an infamous discussion between git and bzr developers on >>>> the bzr M), could not understand a thing about it, and did not >>>> understand any point in it except speed. Then I was forced to use git >>>> because of bzr-svn constant frustrations - and I ended up to really >>>> like it. >>> >>>> At last scipy conference, I tried to "sell" git advantages to Stefan >>>> (a long time bzr user as well), who was far from convinced from my >>>> explanations and my ranting. Then later he used it and liked it. Of >>>> course, the logical conclusion could be that I am just very bad at >>>> explaining why I like git :) >>> >>> I am pretty convinced that git is an excellent tool, but it forces people >>> to invest a fare amount of time to learn it. I struggle quite a lot to >>> have people use _any_ VCS. I just whish they'd make a usability effort. >>> They could. There are a lot of low hanging fruits. But they don't care. >>> It is geeks programming for geeks, not for normal users, IMHO. >> >> But that's a development tool. I think it is expected that people have >> to somewhat learn something about it. I agree we should care about >> barrier of entry - if there is no way to make Josef happy, for >> example, that would be a really strong argument against git. > > How good is the conversion between git, bzr and hg?
git <-> bzr works well for one time import, because they share a common stream format for exchange. I don't know for hg (there is hg->git, but I don't know the other direction - I used the convert extension to try hg named branches from my git import of numpy). > Rather can the selected system sufficiently support the other systems? I think it would only lead to more complication, weird errors and confusion. I know at least gnome thought about this, and quickly gave up. > There are at least two components: > 1) Developers > 2) Users like myself that test and use developmental versions and > provide the odd error report and patch. > > Under the distributed approach, a developmental version does not > exist. It is exactly the same as before - there is a "reference" branch for main development that people would use. > Also, comments like 'get the > latest version from the trunk' does become rather meaningless. It is meaningless because there is nothing to do :) If you look at the actual git mirror http://projects.scipy.org/git/?p=numpy;a=summary The snapshot link gives you a tarball for every revision (this is not specific to git, at least hg web portal has the same capability). David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
