From: Michael O. <mw...@gn...> - 2006-04-01 18:45:14
|
Now that ERC is a part of Emacs, I would like to discuss the possibility of moving ERC to the project management at savannah.gnu.org. Does anyone have viewpoints for or against this change? =2D-=20 Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/ Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS /` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG |_] | \| |_| Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net |
From: Michael O. <mw...@gn...> - 2006-04-11 21:44:48
|
Michael Olson <mw...@gn...> writes: > Now that ERC is a part of Emacs, I would like to discuss the > possibility of moving ERC to the project management at > savannah.gnu.org. Does anyone have viewpoints for or against this > change? Consider this the second call for comments on this issue. My inclination is to move us to savannah.gnu.org. =2D-=20 Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/ Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS /` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG |_] | \| |_| Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net |
From: Edward O'C. <ho...@gm...> - 2006-04-11 21:53:41
|
Michael Olson wrote: > Consider this the second call for comments on this issue. Oh. I have to admit that I assumed your two emails were April Fools' Day jokes, and so didn't answer. I'm -0 on moving to Savannah, and -1 on moving to Arch. Moving to Savannah: I don't care either way; the sign on my zero comes from the fact that I'd have to re-check-out ERC on every machine on which I have it checked out. Moving to Arch: I really, really dislike working with Arch, and so would prefer we not move to it. But I don't have any technical objections. Ted -- Edward O'Connor ho...@gm... Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem. |
From: Michael O. <mw...@gn...> - 2006-04-11 22:29:53
|
Edward O'Connor <ho...@gm...> writes: > Michael Olson wrote: > >> Consider this the second call for comments on this issue. > > Oh. I have to admit that I assumed your two emails were April Fools' > Day jokes, and so didn't answer. I'm -0 on moving to Savannah, and > -1 on moving to Arch. Oops. The timing of those emails was a bit off, I guess. I wrote them in all seriousness. > Moving to Arch: I really, really dislike working with Arch, and so > would prefer we not move to it. But I don't have any technical > objections. Do you have any preferences regarding darcs (or other revision control systems)? =2D-=20 Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/ Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS /` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG |_] | \| |_| Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net |
From: Damien E. <erc...@re...> - 2006-04-12 01:09:14
|
Michael Olson <mw...@gn...> writes: >> Moving to Arch: I really, really dislike working with Arch, and so >> would prefer we not move to it. But I don't have any technical >> objections. > > Do you have any preferences regarding darcs (or other revision control > systems)? Hi Michael, Have you tried bazaar-ng? The current implementation's in python which I'm sure will bother some people, and it's still quite new in parts, but it seems to be quite nicely designed. The design is closer to darcs or bitkeeper than the original arch. Cheers, Damien |
From: Michael O. <mw...@gn...> - 2006-04-12 02:29:48
|
Damien Elmes <erc...@re...> writes: > Have you tried bazaar-ng? The current implementation's in python > which I'm sure will bother some people, and it's still quite new in > parts, but it seems to be quite nicely designed. The design is > closer to darcs or bitkeeper than the original arch. I'm trying it out on a few small school-related projects. It seems to do the basics reasonably well. It doesn't handle the concept of "pushing" changes very well, though -- I have to run the revert command to update my reference copy when I push changes from a remote machine. I guess I'll go into a few of the reasons that I like Arch so well. 1. Repository and project namespace. From the name of a repository you can glean an email address and a rough estimate of how old the projects contained in it are. From the project triple, you get the name of the project, an identifying tag, and a version number. It seems like a very elegant way to identify a branch: one that makes it easy to write archive-browsing interfaces. 2. Automatic generation of ChangeLog entries is at least somewhat feasible by means of using a consistent layout in your commit messages. This doesn't have much practical use for ERC, admittedly, since it must now use Emacs-style ChangeLog files. I try to be flexible when it comes to revision control systems. As long as the revision control system that we use doesn't have esoteric command line options (-z3 ... ugh), non-atomic commits, and clumsy methods of handling file renames and deletions, like CVS, I'll be content with it. =2D-=20 Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/ Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS /` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG |_] | \| |_| Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net |
From: Edward O'C. <ho...@gm...> - 2006-04-13 18:24:09
|
> Do you have any preferences regarding darcs (or other revision control > systems)? I like darcs, and I use it for all of my personal projects. But I happen to only use it in cases where I'm the sole developer, and have no experience using it with other people. So I'm +0 on darcs I guess. Although it's not sexy/cool/distributed, Subversion would be a nice, incremental improvement from what we have now. Ted -- Edward O'Connor ho...@gm... Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem. |