-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 25-May-07, at 8:52 AM, Aycan iRiCAN wrote:
Marc Feeley wrote:
I have pretty much settled on Mercurial (http://www.selenic.com/ mercurial/wiki/) as the source control management system for Gambit. If you have another suggestion then please let me know ASAP.
I suggest Darcs. It's distributed, interactive and supports spontaneous branches. It supports various platforms including Windows, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, AIX, Linux and Cygwin. It's reliable, we're using darcs around a year (constantly developing applications everyday) and had no problem.
Best Regards.
I was considering darcs but the "conflict bug" seems serious:
http://programming.reddit.com/info/19vvs/comments
Marc
Afficher les réponses par date
Marc Feeley wrote:
On 25-May-07, at 8:52 AM, Aycan iRiCAN wrote:
.. It's distributed, interactive and supports spontaneous branches.
Same thing for Git and probably for Mercurial, right?
From a cursory look, Mercurial seem pretty much identical to Git, but
written partly in another implementation language (Python (highlevel stuff) + C (lowlevel) instead of Shell & C (highlevel) + C (lowlevel)), except that the repository format and maybe the set of tools / their usage is probably not the same. (I wonder how Mercurial handles diffing/compression in it's repository format.)
(Maybe Python is a better language than Shell/C. But I'm personally not really interested in writing Python.)
A nice thing of Git (and perhaps also Mercurial) is it's conceptual simplicity. Git does not care about tracking diffs, it is conceptually storing full content for each version, and lets the lowerlevel storage find out about how to compact them efficiently and the higher level tools to care about merging. Git can also be used well for non-text content and that can make it a viable storage system for web applications and other purposes; although as mentioned I've started writing another object storage which is better at handling many small objects (and is planned to be able to garbage collect uninteresting parts)).
I haven't understood yet what Darcs is offering regarding "reordering of patches".
BTW it seems there is a way to handle GIT repositories with Darcs (I've never tried it): http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/DarcsGit
http://git.or.cz/ is even going so far as to saying: "Some other projects have taken the concepts from the Git project and are either porting an existing toolset to use the Git tools, or reimplementing the concepts internally, to benefit from the performance improvements. This includes e.g. Darcs-git http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/DarcsGit." I'm not sure whether Darcs-Git is really offering good performance (and whether that has been a goal), or whether it is just meant as a way to interoperate with Git.
Christian.
Christian Jaeger wrote:
Marc Feeley wrote:
On 25-May-07, at 8:52 AM, Aycan iRiCAN wrote:
.. It's distributed, interactive and supports spontaneous branches.
Same thing for Git and probably for Mercurial, right?
In my opinion, yes.
(Maybe Python is a better language than Shell/C. But I'm personally not really interested in writing Python.)
I'm personally not interested in hacking the code for my source control system at all. :)
A nice thing of Git (and perhaps also Mercurial) is it's conceptual simplicity.
I don't find the concepts between the two very different. Good ideas and features from one seem to flow to the other fairly quickly.
The primary feature that I point to about Mercurial is: Windows.
Mercurial regards Windows as a necessary port. Git regards Windows as an evil they tolerate.
-a
-
Andrew Lentvorski -
Christian Jaeger -
Marc Feeley