Source control for all dmd source (Git propaganda =)

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> "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).
> 
	I've started. I'll give you a full report tomorrow when I have 
tested it more completely, but I have to tell you that it doesn't 
look good for Git. Now, I have to ask: have *you* tried Mercurial or 
Bazaar? And what, in your opinion, is the main advantage of Git over 
the other two?

> 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...
> 
	I agree completely with you there. That's more or less why I asked 
if we really needed a distributed SCM rather than a simple svn.

>> 	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...
> 
	Anything concrete to back your affirmation? Maybe all I've said is 
"I've read", but at least I'm giving reasons. All you're saying is 
"it's better", without saying what makes it better.

>> 	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.
> 
	Maybe you do, but that's not the impression the Git fans here were 
giving:
  - Robert Fraser on win32 support: "git's Win32 support via 
TortoiseGit is nearly as good as SVN's now"
  - All the discussion between BCS, hasen and Daniel Keep on 
tortoise git.

>> 	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).

	Agreed

> Having a DSCM would make things easier for people that integrates DMDFE in other
> projects than DMD.
> 
	If you say so...

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20090602/0b832167/attachment.pgp>