Source control for all dmd source (Git propaganda =)

Leandro Lucarella llucax at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 12:19:25 PDT 2009


"Jérôme M. Berger", el  1 de junio a las 19:55 me escribiste:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> >Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> >>Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >>>Anyways, my point was, putting DMDFE in a SCM would be great, even when
> >>>it's svn. For me the ideal would be Git, Mercurial or other distributed
> >>>SCM would be nice, but even svn is better than we have now =)
> >>>
> >>    Oh, I agree. However, IMO git is a poor choice. Mercurial, Bazaar or
> >>svn would be better.
> >After having used both git and svn, I'll have to VERY strongly disagree
> >with that last part.  I'd imagine that *any* half-way sane DVCS would be
> >better than svn.
> >As for the others, you don't provide any objective reasons for WHY
> >they're better than git.
> 	Well, the reason *I* don't use git is that at the time I started using a DVCS, 
> it didn't run at all on Windows (some people reported partial success with 
> cygwin but that was all). Even if support has improved, it still seems to me 
> like Windows is a second rate citizen in the git world, and this leads me to 
> worry about how git handles the idiosyncrasies of Windows. Plus, my experience 
> with other cygwin/msys based projects leave me worried about git's speed on 
> Windows (although I haven't tested it).

Why don't you test it and stop talking about what you think it's going on
and start talking about what's *really* going on.

It doesn't seems very fair to discard something just because you have the
feeling that it wouldn't work well (specially when other people use it and
say it works well).

Anyway, I insist that the main point is having DMDFE in a SCM. If Walter
feels comfortable with svn *now*, I think it should be svn *now*. I prefer
some no-ideal SCM *now* than the ideal SCM *in a distant future*. We can
always migrate the repo to something else when the time is right...

> 	Moreover, everything I've read on the web seems to indicate that git is 
> difficult to use if you want to do more than add/commit/update. Mercurial is 
> *very* easy to both setup and use on windows as well as linux. I'm less familiar 
> with Bazaar, but from what I've seen it's very similar to Mercurial.

Again "I've read". =)

I'm telling you, git is easy, it just a little harder to get used to it,
but it's so much better when you do...

> 	Finally, no matter how good it is, TortoiseGIT is not enough (in the same way 
> that TortoiseCVS, TortoiseSVN and TortoiseHg are not enough). You need good 
> command-line support so that you can access it easily from custom tools (for 
> example to generate releases automatically).

You have a good command-line support.

> 	On a side note, we have to ask ourselves: is a DSCM really needed for D? So 
> long as there are only a few developers, a centralized system might be enough 
> (in which case svn becomes the only real choice).

I think it's not *needed*, as a SCM is not *needed* either. Having one
(SCM) just would make things easier (and might encourage developers to
hack DMDFE, as following the changes in a repo might give you a better
insight about how is written and maybe people can spot bugs too). Having
a DSCM would make things easier for people that integrates DMDFE in other
projects than DMD.


-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list