Re: [CZT-Devel] Moving CZT source code repository to DVCS (Git vs Mercurial poll)

[Mark U. <ma...@cs...>]

Andrius,

Thanks for giving such a good summary of the pros and cons of each system.

Yes, I'm in favour of moving CZT to a distributed version control system,
and would vote for GIT as well.  (I haven't used it a lot yet, but have
several other projects that I'd like to move over, so I'd like to get more
experience with it).

Git: +1 = 2
Mercurial = 0.

Cheers
Mark


On 13 June 2012 04:31, Andrius Velykis <an...@ve...> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I work with Leo in Newcastle and have a proposal to move CZT
> repository to a distributed version control system (DVCS), e.g. Git or
> Mercurial. Would like your comments about this :)
>
> Over the last year we have added some new features to CZT, including a
> transactional SectionManager, updated Eclipse plug-ins and support for
> Z/EVES theorem prover. It would be nice to release it all in a new CZT
> version.
>
> However, currently we have two branches in the repository. When we
> developed transactional SectionManager (which tracks key
> dependencies), we branched off the main SVN trunk. Now we need to
> merge back to release the code. From what I gather, SVN merging is
> trickier than in modern distributed version control systems (DVCS) and
> I am a bit afraid that if we move to a DVCS later, the merge history
> may get lost.
>
> Leo and I proposed to move to DVCS in an earlier email (and it was
> supported by Tim Miller). So what if we move CZT repository to DVCS
> (Git or Mercurial) now and merge afterwards, followed by a release of
> new CZT version.
>
> There are many benefits of using a DVCS and there are many "why"
> explanations on the web, e.g. here:
> http://blogs.atlassian.com/2012/02/version-control-centralized-dvcs/.
> SourceForge supports both Git and Mercurial so it is our choice which
> way CZT should go for. Both systems are comparable in functionality,
> so eventually it is the developer choice which we prefer to use.
> Again, there are MANY Git vs. Mercurial comparisons online, e.g. here
> (with links to more detailed arguments):
> http://www.atlassian.com/dvcs/overview/dvcs-options-git-or-mercurial
>
> I would like to start a developer poll about this :) Here is is my
> choice with some arguments following:
>
> - Git: +1 (Andrius)
> - Mercurial: 0
>
> I choose Git over Mercurial because it suits my style better. I have
> used both for some time but Git emerged as my DVCS of choice. I am a
> fan of the "staging area" and partial commits. Sometimes I develop a
> couple things at the same time and may only want to commit parts of
> the changes as well-isolated commits. Together with nice UIs (I am
> using SourceTree on Mac) I am able to pick specific lines in files to
> commit.
>
> Furthermore, I like the lightweight branches and have benefitted
> frequently from the 'rebasing' and history rewriting when needed. When
> using Mercurial, similar things can be achieved with 'bookmarks' and
> 'mercurial queues', but the Git counterparts feel more like
> first-class citizens. I will not go far into details here.
>
> The worry about git's "history-destructive" changes can be alleviated
> with a change in working model. For example, student contributions
> could be achieved by them forking the main repository and then doing
> 'pull requests' ('merge requests' in SourceForge) thus avoiding giving
> write-access to the main repository. Furthermore, by default
> SourceForge Git repositories have the 'denyFastForwards' flag set,
> which disallows 'force' pushes that are destructive to the history. So
> history is safe in this case (also there should be a "policy" among
> developers to have no 'force' pushes).
>
> Finally, Git seems to have the edge in market share at the moment.
> Considering CZT toolchain, here is a quick glance: Maven - SVN with
> Git mirrors, CUP - SVN, JFlex - SVN, Eclipse - Git, jEdit - SVN/Git.
> So it looks like the ones which are moving to DVCS, are choosing Git.
>
> In the end, I am not 'allergic' to any of the DVCS choices and will be
> glad to go with the public choice.
>
> When decided, I could handle the repository move from SVN to the DVCS
> of choice in SourceForge. While on the similar topic, we could also
> migrate to the new SourceForge platform (named Allura). This would
> require admin rights though.. if everyone is ok with that.
>
> What do you think about the move? Which system would you prefer? Or
> maybe you are against DVCS and would like to stay with SVN?
>
> Best regards,
> ~Andrius Velykis
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> CZT-Devel mailing list
> CZT...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/czt-devel
>