Thread: clisp: cvs --> hg

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Hi,
I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
Any objections?
Sam.

Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:

> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
> Any objections?

What major problem does it solve?

-- 
BECHA...
   CKOPO CE3OH...

Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
> 
>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>> Any objections?
> 
> What major problem does it solve?

it allows one to keep working even when not connected to the VCS server.
it allows easier concurrent development (branching).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control#Distributed_revision_control

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Aleksej Saushev<as...@in...> wrote:
> Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
>
>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>> Any objections?
>
> What major problem does it solve?

My use of CLISP (especially the CVS version) is as a way for me to
keep track of forthcoming changes so that I can adapt OpenAxiom
to run with CLISP -- something that has not been very successful I must say.
All other free Lisp systems I use offer CVS (for the majority) or SVN.
If I have to deal with yet another layer on top of existing layers of CLISP,
well maybe I should just forget it.  In that sense, I don't think my opinion
should matter.

-- Gaby

Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:

> Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
>> 
>>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>>> Any objections?
>> 
>> What major problem does it solve?
>
> it allows one to keep working even when not connected to the VCS server.

You do the same with CVS, only in the explicit way:
e.g. http://www.netbsd.org/docs/current/#import-merge

And this way has the advantage of preventing you from committing local,
work-in-progress changes to main repository ("public" in terms of
distributed VCS).

> it allows easier concurrent development (branching).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control#Distributed_revision_control

I still doubt these "advantages" justify transition.

Mercurial requires more maintainance work for me when compared to CVS.

-- 
CKOPO CE3OH...

Sam Steingold writes:
 > Aleksej Saushev wrote:
 > > Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
 > > 
 > >> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
 > >> Any objections?
 > > 
 > > What major problem does it solve?
 > 
 > it allows one to keep working even when not connected to the VCS server.
This is possible in cvs.
As far as I can tell you only need to connect to the server when 
you want to update, commit, diff, etc.

 > it allows easier concurrent development (branching).
In what ways easier?

 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control
 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control#Distributed_revision_control

What are the costs of changing?
I assume one is that those of us who like to get current source
will have to do something different.
Including installing new software.  
Which is not always as easy as we'd like to think.

Don Cohen wrote:
> Sam Steingold writes:
>  > it allows one to keep working even when not connected to the VCS server.
> This is possible in cvs.
> As far as I can tell you only need to connect to the server when 
> you want to update, commit, diff, etc.

exactly. and these are integral parts of development work.

>  > it allows easier concurrent development (branching).
> In what ways easier?

every developer automatically works in his own branch,
merging is only necessary when pushing.
e.g., you can do development on your feature (including commits &c) without 
disturbing others until you are ready to push.

> What are the costs of changing?
> I assume one is that those of us who like to get current source
> will have to do something different.
> Including installing new software.  
> Which is not always as easy as we'd like to think.

people who only use "cvs up" will need to do "yum install hg" and use "hg pull 
-u" instead of "cvs up".

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:

> Hi,
> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
> Any objections?
> Sam.
>

The world used to use CVS.  The world has switched or is largely in the
process of switching to Subversion.  I have been using Subversion for
several years and it works really well. I don't doubt that Mercurial has
some advantages, I just very seriously doubt that those features warrant
learning and supporting (think IDE) yet another source code control system.
I think you should either stay with CVS or switch to Subversion (which is
very easy).  Please don't force me/us to get and learn a SCCS just for one
package!  I'm sure it's cool and we all love to play with another cute toy
but it is a real hassle for many of the rest of us.  I, for one, would
rather stick to your normal distributions than install/learn another SCCS.

Subversion is good enough.  Let's not force a needless hurddle between the
software and the developer.

Just my opinion.

Blake McBride

Blake McBride wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn... 
> <mailto:sd...@gn...>> wrote:
> 
>     I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>     Any objections?
> 
> The world used to use CVS.  The world has switched or is largely in the 
> process of switching to Subversion.

believe it or not, I have never used svn.
(except for once or twice when I used it to get a hold of some package, iow, I 
only used "svn co").

> I don't doubt that Mercurial has 
> some advantages, I just very seriously doubt that those features warrant 
> learning and supporting (think IDE) yet another source code control system.

actually, Emacs supports hg/git/bzr just fine.

> I think you should either stay with CVS or switch to Subversion 

CVS and SVN are going the way of RCS to extinction.
While there are (and there always will be) users for any obsolete technology 
(think of people running dosemu/freedos to play their favorite dos games), 
conceptually CVS and SVN are just as obsolete as fortran.
A switch to svn is not happening.

> Please don't force me/us to get and learn a SCCS 
> just for one package!

I certainly do not wish to go down in history as someone who forced you or 
someone else to learn how to use a DVCS. :-)
Well, on a second thought, maybe I do. :-)
Maybe you will thank me later.

> I'm sure it's cool and we all love to play with 
> another cute toy but it is a real hassle for many of the rest of us.  I, 
> for one, would rather stick to your normal distributions than 
> install/learn another SCCS.

let me get it straight:
The choice is not "whether" it's "when" and "what".
cvs and svn are falling out of use, just google for news of people switching 
away from them (e.g., python switched to hg this spring).
today, or tomorrow, or next year you WILL have to learn hg or git (probably both).
I understand that you do not want to start now, and we can talk about 
postponing the conversion (say, till the fall), but this is inevitable.
I understand that hg might not be the best tool, some people like git better.
I am open to discussion about that too (although I am pretty comfortable with 
hg while the 144 separate executables which comprise git give me creeps).

> Subversion is good enough.

it is not. sorry.
http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2007/05/linus-torvalds-on-git-and-scm.html
"Subversion has been the most pointless project ever started.
Subversion used to say CVS done right: with that slogan there is nowhere you 
can go. There is no way to do cvs right."

Sam.

Sam Steingold wrote:
> away from them (e.g., python switched to hg this spring).
> today, or tomorrow, or next year you WILL have to learn hg or git (probably both).
> I understand that you do not want to start now, and we can talk about 
> postponing the conversion (say, till the fall), but this is inevitable.
> I understand that hg might not be the best tool, some people like git better.
> I am open to discussion about that too (although I am pretty comfortable with 
> hg while the 144 separate executables which comprise git give me creeps).
>
>   
While I'm happy with CVS, if we must change, then let me vote for hg.  I
think I tried to get git for my Mac.  What a disaster.  hg works fine on
my Mac.  hg works fine on my Solaris box too.

Since I (sort of) use hg with xemacs, it's a bonus if clisp also uses hg.

Ray

 > CVS and SVN are going the way of RCS to extinction.
This sounds like the argument for leaving lisp to go to smalltalk (or
c++ or java ...)
 > While there are (and there always will be) users for any obsolete
 > technology (think of people running dosemu/freedos ...
1. Do you have any reliable statistics on how many users of each
package there are?  Are you sure that you're not describing a drop
in the CVS market share from 92% to 90% ?
2. Is there any reason to believe that hg won't be replaced next year
by something else that will be replaced again the following year by
something else, etc.?  I seem to remember not long ago hearing the
same argument about switching to svn.

Saying that CVS is obsolete or that other people are switching does
not seem to me a legitimate reason to switch.
If the people who actually make the most use of the system (I don't
view myself as one of those peope) prefer the switch, that seems to me
a sufficient reason for the switch.  I'd still be interested in their
reasons, since those reasons might convince me to switch in other
cases I actually control.

Your suggestion of a yum install, btw, won't work on machines that
don't have yum.  I have many times wanted to build clisp on machines
that don't have a wide variety of similar utilities, in some cases
running rather old OS versions.  Fortunately, I can usually get clisp
to build on such systems.  It would be pretty sad if the only reason
to not be able to build it were the inability to get the source!
Since I do have some machines with yum, I could at worst get the clisp
source on one of those machines and then copy it to the others.  
Any ideas for people without yum or hg ? 

I'm assuming I won't have any trouble installing hg - remains to be
seen.

Sam Steingold wrote:
> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
> Any objections?

All in all, the response it underwhelming.
Only Bruno (in a private e-mail) supports the transition.
Vladimir, what is your opinion?

Again, if people hate hg, we can contemplate git (with its 130 separate 
executables) or even bzr (which is dog slow and still exists only because it is 
"a GNU project" and RMS is pushing for emacs to be kept in it).
We can also discuss the proper timing (e.g., right after a release?)

Sam.

Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:

> Sam Steingold wrote:
>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>> Any objections?
>
> All in all, the response it underwhelming.
> Only Bruno (in a private e-mail) supports the transition.
> Vladimir, what is your opinion?
>
> Again, if people hate hg, we can contemplate git (with its 130 separate 
> executables) or even bzr (which is dog slow and still exists only because it is 
> "a GNU project" and RMS is pushing for emacs to be kept in it).
> We can also discuss the proper timing (e.g., right after a release?)
Although my opinion doesn't matter, and I'm not even a regular clisp user,
nevertheless I do support transition to hg (though, personally I prefer
git), because I find it much easier to play with source code using DVCS.

-- 
With best regards, Stas.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Stas Boukarev <sta...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
>
> > Sam Steingold wrote:
> >> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
> >> Any objections?
> >
> > All in all, the response it underwhelming.
> > Only Bruno (in a private e-mail) supports the transition.
> > Vladimir, what is your opinion?
> >
> > Again, if people hate hg, we can contemplate git (with its 130 separate
> > executables) or even bzr (which is dog slow and still exists only because it is
> > "a GNU project" and RMS is pushing for emacs to be kept in it).
> > We can also discuss the proper timing (e.g., right after a release?)
> Although my opinion doesn't matter, and I'm not even a regular clisp user,
> nevertheless I do support transition to hg (though, personally I prefer
> git), because I find it much easier to play with source code using DVCS.

Seconded. I find that interactivity is actually one of the main
benefits of DVCS.

As another data point, most of the lisp libraries on cl.net use darcs.
A few use svn, but almost none use cvs any more. SBCL uses cvs
publicly, but uses git for all active development.

--
Elliott Slaughter

"Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to
predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay

On 6/6/09, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:
> Sam Steingold wrote:
>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>> Any objections?
>
> All in all, the response it underwhelming.
> Only Bruno (in a private e-mail) supports the transition.
> Vladimir, what is your opinion?

I support it too.
I am not sure whether to be hg or git but DVCS will help (me).
Actually I have strange setup at home for dealing with different
branches (using fossil - www.fossil-scm.org - to manage them locally
and manually merging commits).

> * Vladimir Tzankov <igm...@tz...> [2009-06-06 00:40:28 +0300]:
> On 6/6/09, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:
>> Sam Steingold wrote:
>>> I would like to convert the clisp cvs repository to hg (mercurial).
>>
>> All in all, the response it underwhelming.
>> Only Bruno (in a private e-mail) supports the transition.
>> Vladimir, what is your opinion?
>
> I support it too.

Good!

The time is now.
https://sourceforge.net/blog/sourceforge-attack-full-report/
"We are also considering the end-of-life of the CVS service..."
when their downtime is over, I will convert cvs to hg and push it to them.
cvs users should pull using hg.

I hope that in the 20 months, that elapsed since the discussion to which
I am replying now, those, who were opposed to the transition then, have
grown more friendly to DVCS.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 10.04 (lucid)
http://dhimmi.com http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/ http://pmw.org.il
http://honestreporting.com http://thereligionofpeace.com
Lisp suffers from being twenty or thirty years ahead of time.

cvs write access has been disabled for everyone.
hg coming up soon.
please read up https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on gnu/linux terminal
http://dhimmi.com http://openvotingconsortium.org http://mideasttruth.com
http://honestreporting.com http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/
We're too busy mopping the floor to turn off the faucet.

> * Sam Steingold <fq...@ta...> [2011-02-23 12:00:44 -0500]:
>
> cvs write access has been disabled for everyone.
> hg coming up soon.
> please read up https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial

there are now two hg repos: clisp & www.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/clisp/develop
no one has write access yes, but everyone should be able to read.
please test the repos.
Vladimir, please check that the repo is equivalent to the cvs head and
prepare your pending patches against it.
when you think you are ready to push (i.e., committed them to your local
repo and are happy with them - no missing files &c), please tell me and
I will enable your write access, and then you will push (so you will be
the hg guinea pig ;-)

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.3 (Final) X
http://thereligionofpeace.com http://openvotingconsortium.org
http://truepeace.org http://www.memritv.org http://ffii.org http://camera.org
Heck is a place for people who don't believe in gosh.

Sam, I cloned the repository and it contains the same files as my last
cvs update.
I committed locally in the new hg repository the only change I have
pending (fix in GC when gen 0 is split fue to large holes at its end).
So far everything looks fine.

On 2/25/11, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:
>> * Sam Steingold <fq...@ta...> [2011-02-23 12:00:44 -0500]:
> there are now two hg repos: clisp & www.
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/clisp/develop
> no one has write access yes, but everyone should be able to read.
> please test the repos.
> Vladimir, please check that the repo is equivalent to the cvs head and
> prepare your pending patches against it.
> when you think you are ready to push (i.e., committed them to your local
> repo and are happy with them - no missing files &c), please tell me and
> I will enable your write access, and then you will push (so you will be
> the hg guinea pig ;-)

Sam Steingold writes:
 > > please read up https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial
 > 
 > there are now two hg repos: clisp & www.
 > https://sourceforge.net/projects/clisp/develop
 > no one has write access yes, but everyone should be able to read.
 > please test the repos.

I'm trying to figure out what corresponds to 
  cd ...
  cvs up -d

http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial#Access
contains this:
  rsync -av PROJECTNAME.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/PROJECTNAME/* .
but I get
$ rsync -av clisp.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/clisp/ ~don/hg/clisp/
rsync: failed to connect to clisp.hg.sourceforge.net: Connection refused (111)

If I add -e ssh then it seems to connect but wants me to login.

Suggestions?

On 2/25/11 12:50 PM, Don Cohen wrote:
> Sam Steingold writes:
>  > > please read up https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial
>  > 
>  > there are now two hg repos: clisp & www.
>  > https://sourceforge.net/projects/clisp/develop
>  > no one has write access yes, but everyone should be able to read.
>  > please test the repos.
>
> I'm trying to figure out what corresponds to 
>   cd ...
>   cvs up -d
I think you want to do hg clone first.  Then you can do hg pull to get
new stuff and hg update to update your local files.  (I am a new hg
user, but this is what I do.  There might be better ways.)

> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial#Access
> contains this:
>   rsync -av PROJECTNAME.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/PROJECTNAME/* .
> but I get
> $ rsync -av clisp.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/clisp/ ~don/hg/clisp/
> rsync: failed to connect to clisp.hg.sourceforge.net: Connection refused (111)
rsync was disabled for git and hg on sourceforge a while ago.  I think
it still is.

Ray

Raymond Toy writes:

 > > I'm trying to figure out what corresponds to 
 > >   cd ...
 > >   cvs up -d
 > I think you want to do hg clone first.  Then you can do hg pull to get
 > new stuff and hg update to update your local files.  (I am a new hg
 > user, but this is what I do.  There might be better ways.)
In hope of saving some trouble for others,
This seems to have worked for me (after installing mercurial):
 cd ...
 hg clone http://clisp.hg.sourceforge.net:8000/hgroot/clisp/clisp
I notice some differences between the resulting directory and the 
one I had from cvs.  All of these seem to be missing from hg:
 acorn, amiga, cygwin32, dos, dosdjgpp, doswatcom, ffcall, libcharset,
 libiconv, nextapp, os2, queued, sigsegv, win32bc, win32gcc 

It looks like
 cd ...
 hg update
at least does something plausible (reports no changes).
My configure and make commands do seem to work there.
So I'll assume, unless I hear otherwise, that the two lines
above are the answer to my question.

 > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial#Access
 > > contains this:
 > >   rsync -av PROJECTNAME.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/PROJECTNAME/* .
 > rsync was disabled for git and hg on sourceforge a while ago.  I think
 > it still is.
(So why does the sourceforge page contain that instruction?)

On 2/25/11 1:37 PM, Don Cohen wrote:
>  > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mercurial#Access
>  > > contains this:
>  > >   rsync -av PROJECTNAME.hg.sourceforge.net::hgroot/PROJECTNAME/* .
>  > rsync was disabled for git and hg on sourceforge a while ago.  I think
>  > it still is.
> (So why does the sourceforge page contain that instruction?)
I assume the disabling is temporary, due to the attack on
sourceforge.net about a month ago.  They might still be recovering.

Ray

"Don Cohen" <don...@is...>:
>>I'm trying to figure out what corresponds to
>>  cd ...
>>  cvs up -d

> This seems to have worked for me (after installing mercurial):
>  cd ...
>  hg clone http://clisp.hg.sourceforge.net:8000/hgroot/clisp/clisp
> [..]
>  hg update

You are almost right.

Actually, "cvs up -d" corresponds just to "hg pull".

As for the "hg clone", it just corresponds to "cvs co".

Best regards,
- Anton

  > hg update
  You are almost right.
  Actually, "cvs up -d" corresponds just to "hg pull".
Can you explain the difference between pull and update?

Thread: clisp: cvs --> hg

clisp-devel