Re: Should Quesa switch its version control system?

[Lane R. <la...@if...>]

I'm partial to svn mainly based on it being what I know best, and using
it for a lot of different projects, including all of our company repos.
On Windows TortoiseSVN sets the standard (imho) for what good UI should
be in a client. On the Mac, unfortunately, there is not a good UI
client, although SvnX and RapidSVN both do decent jobs, and scplugin
attempts to get a bit toward TortoiseSVN.

I have checked out git and the main turn off was a repo per project and
lack of good UI clients.

Mercurial seems to be OK, I've shied away in the past due to speed
issues which seem to be resolved and python requirements which I could
get over. :) I wouldn't be apposed to going this direction.

Lane Roathe
President    Ideas From the Deep  <http://www.ideasfromthedeep.com>
___________________________________________________________________
I am Pentium of Borg. Precision is futile. You will be approximated.

on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 James W. Walker may have said:

>Recently, in the thread "Buffer overrun in 64 bit build", some people  
>expressed interest in switching Quesa from CVS to some other version  
>control system.   I thought we should discuss it in a separate thread,  
>so that anyone who subscribes to the list but doesn't read every  
>message would have a fair chance to see it and offer an opinion.
>
>Besides CVS, SourceForge supports Subversion, Git, Mercurial, and  
>Bazaar.  All of these are newer, and at least in some ways better,  
>than CVS.
>
>Git, Mercurial, and Bazaar are examples of "distributed revision  
>control systems".  This means that each repository contains the  
>complete history.  Therefore you can do many things, such as looking  
>at a log or comparing different versions of a file, without using a  
>network.  This also makes it easier to work on a big overhaul locally  
>without sending each change to the central server, but still having  
>the advantages of version control.
>
>Those who prefer not to live on the command line may want to  
>investigate GUI clients.  I don't have a complete list of these.  I  
>know that on Windows, Subversion and Mercurial have popular clients  
>named TortoiseSVN and TortoiseHG.  On the Mac, I wrote a client for  
>Mercurial called MacMercurial.  I know there's a Subversion client  
>called svnX, but I don't know if that's the most popular.
>
>In the past, we were somewhat tied to the Mac CVS Pro client by its  
>special ability to handle Mac resource forks.  As far as I know, all  
>the necessary resource files in the Quesa tree have been converted  
>to .r text files or some other safe form.