Hi,
It ought to happen one day, but my patience finally ran out with our svn
(server). Branch management is cumbersome, slow and can only happen when I'm
online. When I'm on the (railway) road, I'm completely cut off. As is
generally acknowledged, git doesn't have any of these disadvantages. It is
blazing fast, works always and supports distributed development much better
than svn ("git tracks content, not files").
I, as only a poor contributor to Orocos, have two options: work with git
locally and 'push' my patches to the current svn repository, other people
won't notice my switch [1] OR switch completely to git and maintain a server
somewhere else, other people would need git as well to track my branches and
mainline [2].
Both choices have pro and cons, but the main criterium is 'what other people
would do'. If most feel more confortable with working with svn, [1] would be
prefered, as I'm bothering no one else with my switch. If most other people
start working with git as well, [2] is preferred because :
a. when using [1], all patches must always go through the svn server and may
not move from git to git, so [1] does not support the full power of git
b. When using [2], one can still set up an svn repository which tracks
several git branches for those who want to stick with svn. They will only be
able to checkout, not to commit.
I've seen other people using [1] to collaborate on svn repositories on
projects like berlios or sourceforge, whilst using local branches using git.
We could setup a 'git' page on orocos.org to document the same common
commands as we have done for 'svn'.
If you have any opinion or suggestions about this subject, speak now or be
silent forever :-)
Peter
[1] http://tsunanet.blogspot.com/2007/07/learning-git-svn-in-5min.html
[2] http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html
git versus svn
Op dinsdag 19-08-2008 om 17:27 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Peter
Soetens:
> Hi,
>
> It ought to happen one day, but my patience finally ran out with our svn
> (server). Branch management is cumbersome, slow and can only happen when I'm
> online. When I'm on the (railway) road, I'm completely cut off. As is
> generally acknowledged, git doesn't have any of these disadvantages. It is
> blazing fast, works always and supports distributed development much better
> than svn ("git tracks content, not files").
I think the discussion should be more, centralized-vcs vs
distributed-vcs.
I'm wondering if you ever considered bzr [1]? It _is_ cross platform and
is much easier to use than git...
François
git versus svn
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:23:40PM +0200, Fran?ois Cauwe wrote:
> Op dinsdag 19-08-2008 om 17:27 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Peter
> Soetens:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It ought to happen one day, but my patience finally ran out with our svn
> > (server). Branch management is cumbersome, slow and can only happen when I'm
> > online. When I'm on the (railway) road, I'm completely cut off. As is
> > generally acknowledged, git doesn't have any of these disadvantages. It is
> > blazing fast, works always and supports distributed development much better
> > than svn ("git tracks content, not files").
>
> I think the discussion should be more, centralized-vcs vs
> distributed-vcs.
>
> I'm wondering if you ever considered bzr [1]? It _is_ cross platform and
> is much easier to use than git...
Well ... This is a matter of taste. I has problems manipulating bazaar
(problems related to having the tool 'in the way') and grasped git very
quickly. Other nice thing: the svn bridge.
Git became usable in 1.5 (it was really unusable before). If your
experience with it is earlier than that, try it again ;-)
Anyway ... as always it is a matter of taste (again), so I feel that
this discussion could drift towards
git-vs-bazaar-vs-mercurial-vs-darcs-vs ...
Sylvain
git versus svn
> I, as only a poor contributor to Orocos, have two options: work with git > locally and 'push' my patches to the current svn repository, other people > won't notice my switch [1] OR switch completely to git and maintain a server > somewhere else, other people would need git as well to track my branches and > mainline [2].
I'm already doing [1]. Svn is out of question for me. Even though this is better than pure SVN, [1] is still a lot more painful than [2] because the "main" repository has to remain linear.
Sylvain
git versus svn
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Peter Soetens wrote:
[...]
> Both choices have pro and cons, but the main criterium is 'what other people
> would do'. If most feel more confortable with working with svn, [1] would be
> prefered, as I'm bothering no one else with my switch. If most other people
> start working with git as well, [2] is preferred because :
> a. when using [1], all patches must always go through the svn server and may
> not move from git to git, so [1] does not support the full power of git
> b. When using [2], one can still set up an svn repository which tracks
> several git branches for those who want to stick with svn. They will only be
> able to checkout, not to commit.
> If you have any opinion or suggestions about this subject, speak now or be
> silent forever :-)
[confirming my status as a conservative and devil's advocate :-]
If the main criterium is, what *other* people would do, then my question would be:
'What do other people _win/loose_ by scenario [2]?'
>From the top of my head:
Win:
* ability to maintain own branches of orocos.org (easier) without having commit rights and messing around too much [any orocos user doing the "vendor branch" trick right now ??]
Loose:
* time (money)
- search for new UI
- get acquainted to new UI
So for me personnally, I don't see any wins yet (but I have to admit that I only spent 2 seconds thinking!)
Klaas
ps1. It won't solve your railroad problem, but ...
git versus svn
On Aug 20, 2008, at 04:23 , Klaas Gadeyne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Peter Soetens wrote:
> [...]
>> Both choices have pro and cons, but the main criterium is 'what
>> other people
>> would do'. If most feel more confortable with working with svn, [1]
>> would be
>> prefered, as I'm bothering no one else with my switch. If most
>> other people
>> start working with git as well, [2] is preferred because :
>> a. when using [1], all patches must always go through the svn
>> server and may
>> not move from git to git, so [1] does not support the full power of
>> git
>> b. When using [2], one can still set up an svn repository which
>> tracks
>> several git branches for those who want to stick with svn. They
>> will only be
>> able to checkout, not to commit.
>
>> If you have any opinion or suggestions about this subject, speak
>> now or be
>> silent forever :-)
>
> [confirming my status as a conservative and devil's advocate :-]
>
> If the main criterium is, what *other* people would do, then my
> question would be:
> 'What do other people _win/loose_ by scenario [2]?'
>
>> From the top of my head:
>
> Win:
> * ability to maintain own branches of orocos.org (easier) without
> having commit rights and messing around too much [any orocos user
> doing the "vendor branch" trick right now ??]
We almost went the vendor branch route, but thankfully did not. It's
just too much pain ...
> Loose:
> * time (money)
> - search for new UI
> - get acquainted to new UI
Lose = learning a new tool (not a huge deal though, really).
Macports has git and a couple of UI frontends (none of which I've
used), so OS X support is there (not sure about Fink users)
> ps1. It won't solve your railroad problem, but ...
Yes, can't wait to use svn 1.5! Hate hate hate branches in SVN right
now ... This would hopefully address Peter's issues with branch
management, but won't help with working offline unfortunately.
S
git versus svn
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Klaas Gadeyne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Peter Soetens wrote:
> [...]
>> Both choices have pro and cons, but the main criterium is 'what other
>> people
>> would do'. If most feel more confortable with working with svn, [1] would
>> be
>> prefered, as I'm bothering no one else with my switch. If most other people
>> start working with git as well, [2] is preferred because :
>> a. when using [1], all patches must always go through the svn server and
>> may
>> not move from git to git, so [1] does not support the full power of git
>> b. When using [2], one can still set up an svn repository which tracks
>> several git branches for those who want to stick with svn. They will only
>> be
>> able to checkout, not to commit.
>
>> If you have any opinion or suggestions about this subject, speak now or be
>> silent forever :-)
>
> [confirming my status as a conservative and devil's advocate :-]
>
> If the main criterium is, what *other* people would do, then my question
> would be:
> 'What do other people _win/loose_ by scenario [2]?'
>
>> From the top of my head:
>
> Win:
> * ability to maintain own branches of orocos.org (easier) without having
> commit rights and messing around too much [any orocos user doing the "vendor
> branch" trick right now ??]
>
> Loose:
> * time (money)
> - search for new UI
> - get acquainted to new UI
Another one in this category: git is not so well supported on Windows
or Mac OS X
It _is_ supported by Eclipse, on all platforms, to some extend, I think.
Herman
git versus svn
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
[...]
> Another one in this category: git is not so well supported on Windows
>
> or Mac OS X
>
> It _is_ supported by Eclipse, on all platforms, to some extend, I think.
Well, I had a quick look, and it the eclipse plugin is just a front-end and *uses* an installed version of git.
Unfortunately,
- some of us (Tiger users, /me for instance) users would need to build git from source first. See
- there is no update site for egit yet, you have to clone it first and build it yourself too. See
So yes, to some extent :-)
Klaas
--
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
git versus svn
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Klaas Gadeyne <klaas [dot] gadeyne [..] ...> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Another one in this category: git is not so well supported on Windows
>>
>> or Mac OS X
>>
>> It _is_ supported by Eclipse, on all platforms, to some extend, I think.
>
> Well, I had a quick look, and it the eclipse plugin is just a front-end and
> *uses* an installed version of git.
> Unfortunately, - some of us (Tiger users, /me for instance) users would need
> to build git from source first. See
>
fink install git
> - there is no update site for egit yet, you have to clone it first and build
> it yourself too. See
And then, the build errors occur. I'm too old for this :-)
k
git versus svn
On Tuesday 19 August 2008 17:27:34 Peter Soetens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It ought to happen one day, but my patience finally ran out with our svn
> (server). Branch management is cumbersome, slow and can only happen when
> I'm online. When I'm on the (railway) road, I'm completely cut off. As is
> generally acknowledged, git doesn't have any of these disadvantages. It is
> blazing fast, works always and supports distributed development much better
> than svn ("git tracks content, not files").
>
> I, as only a poor contributor to Orocos, have two options: work with git
> locally and 'push' my patches to the current svn repository, other people
> won't notice my switch [1] OR switch completely to git and maintain a
> server somewhere else, other people would need git as well to track my
> branches and mainline [2].
>
> Both choices have pro and cons, but the main criterium is 'what other
> people would do'. If most feel more confortable with working with svn, [1]
> would be prefered, as I'm bothering no one else with my switch. If most
> other people start working with git as well, [2] is preferred because :
> a. when using [1], all patches must always go through the svn server and
> may not move from git to git, so [1] does not support the full power of git
> b. When using [2], one can still set up an svn repository which tracks
> several git branches for those who want to stick with svn. They will only
> be able to checkout, not to commit.
>
> I've seen other people using [1] to collaborate on svn repositories on
> projects like berlios or sourceforge, whilst using local branches using
> git. We could setup a 'git' page on orocos.org to document the same common
> commands as we have done for 'svn'.
>
> If you have any opinion or suggestions about this subject, speak now or be
> silent forever :-)
I don't have any problem with moving to git, as long as the 'git' page on
orocos.org is online before the change ;)
Ruben