Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:24:29AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juni 2008 06:21:16 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Just let your system look at the combined diff of all changesets the
> user added during the time he did a specific project, then you
> effectively have a cle
Am Sonntag 29 Juni 2008 06:21:16 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I'll try to keep it in mind... But no promises :-)
Thanks anyway :-)
> Sanitizing history is about purging stuff that doesn't matter for the
> end result; not about dropping important information. If people don't
> understand the impo
second aspect is infinitely more interesting: The fact that the
object structure is extremely simple, and represents the history very
directly; that it is absolutely flexible in how it can be used, all the
specifics of revision control being merely conventions. The fact that
the user works on it
Am Samstag 28 Juni 2008 04:24:50 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Well, as you seem to have used Mercurial much more and longer, that
> isn't really surprising :-) If I learned Mercurial now, I'd most likely
> hold exactly the opposite opinion... That doesn't really tell much.
Please tell me how it wo
t when Linus designed Git, he was thinking "it must be
easy to change history". Rather, I suspect that the flexible design of
Git just made changing history easy as a byproduct, along with many
other things considered uncommon up till then. It encouraged
experimentation -- and people so
nd the tool, and it is likely to be
inefficient on the long run, even though I might not even notice it anymore,
because I got used to it.
If a tool feels familiar at once, but hinders me in the long run, I'll check
out other tools.
A good tool needs to fullfill both goals for me, and M
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:41:17AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Juni 2008 19:08:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Something feeling intuitive depends solely on previous experience.
> > It is *always* subjective.
>
> There are usability people saying quite the contrary.
Am Sonntag 22 Juni 2008 02:44:25 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I said at the beginning of this discussion that I doubt any other system
> offers this kind of directness and flexibility, and you haven't
> convinced me in the course of it that Mercurial does. In fact, you
> haven't really tried. Rathe
Am Montag 16 Juni 2008 19:08:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Something feeling intuitive depends solely on previous experience. It is
> *always* subjective.
There are usability people saying quite the contrary. Have a look at
http://openusability.org for once.
A program feeling intuitive depend
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:00:42PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Freitag 20 Juni 2008 02:22:45 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Every project has a different workflow -- both small and large. Git
> > is nice because it serves *all* kinds of workflows; it is extremely
> > flexible in
Am Freitag 20 Juni 2008 02:22:45 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Every project has a different workflow -- both small and large. Git is
> nice because it serves *all* kinds of workflows; it is extremely
> flexible in this way. Again, that's what I like about it...
I already wrote about the three thin
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 03:11:02PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 19 Juni 2008 00:46:55 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > Once the Hurd has reached 1/100 of the RCS traffic of Linux, a
> > > switch to a powerful tool might be feasable.
> >
> > That's like saying that it's
Am Donnerstag 19 Juni 2008 00:46:55 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Once the Hurd has reached 1/100 of the RCS traffic of Linux, a switch
> > to a powerful tool might be feasable.
>
> That's like saying that it's only useful to run GNU/Linux on very large
> servers, because others don't need the pow
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 07:47:04PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> The point is: The Hurd doesn't need a powerful source control tool, it
> just needs something which is much better than CVS and usable by all
> possible contributors.
>
> Once the Hurd has reached 1/100 of the RCS traffic of Li
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:11:20PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No powerful tool can be properly used without understanding it.
The point is: The Hurd doesn't need a powerful source control tool, it
just needs something which is much better than CVS and usable by all
possible contributors.
O
o access the whole project history to just get
> the few changes you did after I last pulled your code.
?!?
I have a growing suspicion that you do not really understand how git's
object store works...
> And garbage collecting all the time destroys its advantage, as it will
> just
are longterm kernel hackers, git is the better
> > choice, I think.
>
> Linux has fast changing parts as well as relatively stable ones. I don't
> see why this would be any different with the Hurd. (Making corrections
> for overall activity, of course...)
40% of the sourcefil
he whole project history to just get the few changes you
did after I last pulled your code.
And garbage collecting all the time destroys its advantage, as it will just
create as many packs as you have revisions (as far as I understand it).
> A revision control system is not a file system
Am Mittwoch 11 Juni 2008 03:56:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > That means, that the Mercurial people say, that history should be
> > preserved in most cases, so it wasn't first priority.
>
> This is precisely the sort of policy decisions that the software should
> not impose upon users.
Git deci
ust
> work.
A revision control system is not a file system though. And running a
filesystem on it is not exactly the common use case... Certainly not
what we want to do with the Hurd repository.
> This was one of the things which helped to convince me, that Mercurial
> is
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 01:39:51AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag 07 Juni 2008 18:19:29 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Err... Does that mean that Mercurial doesn't even offer rebase (and
> > it can't be implemented trivially)?!
>
> That means, that the Mercurial people say,
has fast changing parts as well as relatively stable ones. I don't
see why this would be any different with the Hurd. (Making corrections
for overall activity, of course...)
And anyways, I don't see how this is related to the choice of revision
control system.
-antrik-
Am Samstag 07 Juni 2008 17:47:28 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> You are missing the point. With git, *it is not necessary* to extend --
> it's all there; git itself already allows doing pretty much anything
> conceivable!
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Do you mean "with the basic
com
Am Samstag 07 Juni 2008 18:19:29 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Err... Does that mean that Mercurial doesn't even offer rebase (and it
> can't be implemented trivially)?!
That means, that the Mercurial people say, that history should be preserved in
most cases, so it wasn't first priority.
It can
't spread its binary files around like git, it builds
on simple concepts which can even be explained to nontechnical people, and
which can be accessed individually.
This was one of the things which helped to convince me, that Mercurial is the
right choice for me:
"""Unli
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:38:53AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> I'm interested in how they are going to tackle that in the Summer of
> Code project.
>
> I didn't find information about the way they want to do it in the
> short description (and I don't have the time to investigate r
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:55:21PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > git, like UNIX, is based on a couple of very simple yet powerful
> > ideas, and a set of basic tools doing the work. On top of that, you
> > get a set of high-level scripts to easily perfo
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:10:01PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag 03 Juni 2008 05:16:47 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Not knowing Mercurial, I can't really judge. But I have a very hard
> > time believing that any other system comes even *close* to the power
> > and flexib
he info about changes in Linux! The massive changerate
is interesting news to me.
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ------
Betreff: Re: Revision control
Datum: Mittwoch 04 Juni 2008
Von: Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Ivan Shmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Am M
> Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Mercurial offers the same, for GNU/Linux and Windows.
>> Indeed.
>> I assume that it will break the hard link as soon as a change is
>> committed for the file?
> Yes (I just tested it).
> Result: As soon as you commit a change,
Am Mittwoch 04 Juni 2008 07:33:10 schrieb Ivan Shmakov:
> > Mercurial offers the same, for GNU/Linux and Windows.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I assume that it will break the hard link as soon as a change is
> committed for the file?
Yes (I just tested it).
Result: As soon as you commit a
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...] but I'd prefer to see the Hurd development more accessible,
>> and even though there are many good candidates, Mercurial is best
>> suited for that, at least in my opinion.
> How accessible it is, depends first and foremost on what most people
> kno
> Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> The total disk usage for the two repositories will typically be less
>> than the doubled disk usage for any one of them. (As the
> Mercurial offers the same, for GNU/Linux and Windows.
Indeed.
I assume that it
Sorry for the double-posting. I hit send by accident.
Am Dienstag 03 Juni 2008 05:16:47 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> How accessible it is, depends first and foremost on what most people
> know. That probably leaves Mercurial and git as the only serious
> contenders...
That's right.
And after t
Am Dienstag 03 Juni 2008 05:16:47 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> How accessible it is, depends first and foremost on what most people
> know. That probably leaves Mercurial and git as the only serious
> contenders...
And after that it depends on the fact how easy it is to learn it from the
things m
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:16:47 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> but also other things like the fact that
> Savannah offers git hosting but no Mercurial hosting.
Actually that's no true now :-)
According last news from sv.gnu.org Mercurial are supported.
See https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/fo
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:16PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> [...] but I'd prefer to see the Hurd development more accessible, and
> even though there are many good candidates, Mercurial is best suited
> for that, at least in my opinion.
How accessible it is, depends first and f
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:44:08AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Due to the optimizations / repacking, git repositories after gc can be
> smaller than mercurial ones (especially for binary data it seems to me
> from my own tests), but optimizing takes time (and I'm bound to forget
> i
Hi,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:40:29PM -0400, Andrei Barbu wrote:
> There's also the fact that moving to something like git is easy [...]
> Since it's a rather simple change, aside from the fact that people
> would have to learn a new set of commands, which is a few minutes of
> work, [...]
Unfo
Since there were no objections, I assume a bit of arguing about possible cvs
replacements might be useful.
Still, this doesn't imply that any decision is there to replace cvs, just that
a discussion about alternatives might yield interesting results.
Am Freitag 30 Mai 2008 20:10:04 schrieb Iv
> Andrei Barbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're throwing ideas out. I suggest darcs.
> http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html Looks at a
> whole host of features.
I don't see much difference between the sets of features of
Darcs and Git as described o
>>>>> Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would there be support for moving to a different revision control
>> mechanism? Anything is far better than cvs, especially if it's
>> distributed. I saw there was some talk of this a while
If we're throwing ideas out. I suggest darcs.
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
Looks at a whole host of features.
Andrei
Ysgrifennodd 2008/5/30 Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For the sake of completeness, I just setup a page with links to
> comparisions:
> -
>
> http://draketo.de/deutsch/freie-software/licht/dvcs-vergleiche-mercurial-git-bazaar-links
>
>
GNOME has been arguing about which of the three
Am Freitag 30 Mai 2008 06:04:09 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> It just makes so much more sense to let the user decide when it's time
> to optimze: It means avoiding a lot of complexity, as well as
> compromises to robustness (which are smaller in Mercurial than some
> other systems, but yet present)
Hi,
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> and the wiki already uses git anyway (even though I prefer Mercurial
> myself, since it feels more natural to me and doesn't have to be
> cleaned up regularly
Well, I can't comment on the "natural" part, as I don't know
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> I like the idea.
>>
>> It would lower the barrier to begin coding on the hurd (I think), and it
>> would
>> be a good opportunity to clean up the cv
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> I like the idea.
>
> It would lower the barrier to begin coding on the hurd (I think), and it
> would
> be a good opportunity to clean up the cvs chaos a bit (so newcomers don't get
> completely lost in the different repos
since it
feels more natural to me and doesn't have to be cleaned up regularly - and it
works in my Hurd installation :) ).
Best wishes,
Arne
Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 23:30:32 schrieb Andrei Barbu:
> Hi,
>
> Would there be support for moving to a different revision control
> mecha
Hi,
Would there be support for moving to a different revision control mechanism?
Anything is far better than cvs, especially if it's distributed. I saw
there was some talk of this a while ago but nothing happened. We've
got lots of good options to pick from that we know will scale well.
Andrei
Hi! This response is a bit delayed, but...
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:31 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> After that endeavor of conversion is over and proves to be working well,
> as a next step I intend to publish a git mirror of the Hurd source
> repository.
I would appreciate a public git mirror
Hello!
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:49:12PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Michael Casadevall dies 23/07/2007 hora 17:53:
> > When I joined [Castle Infinity], development was a complete mess
> > because of similar issues we had here (lack of organization, lack of
> > motivation/time by elder
52 matches
Mail list logo
