Re: clisp: cvs --> hg

[Elliott S. <ell...@gm...>]

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