From: Noel W. <noe...@ya...> - 2006-03-11 12:04:53
|
Sourceforge have made their Subversion support public! In case you can't tell I'm really excited about this, given how much I hate CVS. Our URL is: https://svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/schematics I've started shifting active projects across. I'm changing the directory structure (and hence have not just transferred the CVS repository) to the standard SVN directory layout: project +- trunk +- branches +- tags I think we should have a flat structure: each project can just live in the top level, which the directory structure above as the next level. See the existing directories for an example. N. Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com noel <at> untyped <dot> com AIM: noelhwelsh Blogs: http://monospaced.blogspot.com/ http://www.untyped.com/untyping/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: MJ R. <mj...@ph...> - 2006-03-12 00:46:47
|
Noel Welsh <noe...@ya...> > Sourceforge have made their Subversion support public! In > case you can't tell I'm really excited about this, given > how much I hate CVS. Subversion is a lardball that doesn't solve the worst problems of CVS, is under a GPL-incompatible licence (so limiting integration possibilities) and is far harder to recover if its storage crashes. If you hate CVS, you should hate subversion more. It only adds changesets and shares or amplifies all the other drawbacks. Please can we switch to a next-generation revision control (such as one of the distributed ones), or keep a CVS gateway for now, at least for the postgres driver? Thanks, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask |
From: Eric H. <of...@bl...> - 2006-03-12 07:21:04
|
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mj...@ph...> writes: MJ> Subversion is a lardball that doesn't solve the worst problems MJ> of CVS, is under a GPL-incompatible licence (so limiting MJ> integration possibilities) and is far harder to recover if its MJ> storage crashes. I must jump in here in defense of Subversion. I've been using it at home for three years, and at work for about two. I've never had a problem recovering it; I've never lost data. I wonder if MJ is thinking of the Berkeley DB backend, which is no longer the default; it could indeed "wedge" when not properly configured. (Such wedgitude did not destroy data; it merely prevented the system from working until it was unwedged). The newer FSFS back end appears to be trouble free. (I spend a _lot_ of time on the #svn channel on irc.freenode.net, so I think I have a fair idea of what people are having trouble with. FSFS DB recovery is not one of those things.) MJ> If you hate CVS, you should hate subversion more. It only MJ> adds changesets and shares or amplifies all the other MJ> drawbacks. I honestly don't know why MJ would say that. I've _never_ heard of anyone who regretted moving from CVS to svn. Plus, the subversion developers are the most generous and capable of any Free Software project I've encountered. They'll patiently answer your questions via the mailing list or IRC. The project is quite active; they've made many releases since the initial one. MJ> Please can we switch to a next-generation revision control MJ> (such as one of the distributed ones), Now, that's a more legitimate issue: subversion certainly isn't distributed, and is a terrible choice if you in fact do want a distributed revision control system. But before you switch to one, I'd recommend that you look at http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot. It's ostensibly about bitkeeper, but its arguments apply to all distributed revision control systems. -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL |
From: Anton v. S. <an...@ap...> - 2006-03-12 08:47:03
|
> MJ> Please can we switch to a next-generation revision control > MJ> (such as one of the distributed ones), > > Now, that's a more legitimate issue: subversion certainly isn't > distributed, and is a terrible choice if you in fact do want a > distributed revision control system. But before you switch to one, > I'd recommend that you look at > http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot. It's ostensibly > about bitkeeper, but its arguments apply to all distributed revision > control systems. Quite a battle of FUD we've got going here. In that corner, we have irrelevant license issues and dark mutterings about data loss; in the other corner, we have the utter failure of open source projects due to erroneous dependence on distributed version control systems. The very future of Schematics hangs in the balance, and only a Time Lord can save us now! Where is the Doctor when we need him?! <cue theme music> Anton |
From: Noel W. <noe...@ya...> - 2006-03-12 09:00:24
|
--- Anton van Straaten <an...@ap...> wrote: > The very future of Schematics hangs in the balance, and > only a Time Lord can save us now! Indeed! In defence of Subversion: - it handles directories well - it handles tags and branches much better than CVS - it is administered my a neutral 3rd party with far greater resources (sys admins/bandwidth/server performance) than I could provide N. Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com noel <at> untyped <dot> com AIM: noelhwelsh Blogs: http://monospaced.blogspot.com/ http://www.untyped.com/untyping/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: Anton v. S. <an...@ap...> - 2006-03-12 09:37:00
|
Noel Welsh wrote: > > --- Anton van Straaten <an...@ap...> wrote: > > >>The very future of Schematics hangs in the balance, and >>only a Time Lord can save us now! > > > Indeed! > > In defence of Subversion: > > - it handles directories well > > - it handles tags and branches much better than CVS > > - it is administered my a neutral 3rd party with far > greater resources (sys admins/bandwidth/server performance) > than I could provide I agree, Subversion is fine. I have clients who use it quite happily (so I've used it, but haven't administered it), and PLT seems to be using it quite successfully. I like some of the distributed systems myself (Darcs is nice), and I hardly think the anti-bitkeeper arguments apply in the case of a project like Schematics, but I'm not convinced that a distributed system would add enough value in this case to be worth bothering with. Anton |
From: MJ R. <mj...@ph...> - 2006-03-12 18:57:40
|
Anton van Straaten <an...@ap...> [...] > irrelevant license issues and dark mutterings about data loss; [...] Irrelevant to you, maybe, but I usually operate version control from inside my code editors, rather than remembering arcane command line flags or firing up a different app just to do version control. SVN is worse to integrate and much larger footprint than CVS or many of its next-generation competitors. Please can we have a CVS or distributed-VCS gateway to the repository, at least for the database drivers? Thanks, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask |
From: Anton v. S. <an...@ap...> - 2006-03-12 20:05:03
|
MJ Ray wrote: > Anton van Straaten <an...@ap...> [...] > >>irrelevant license issues and dark mutterings about data loss; [...] > > > Irrelevant to you, maybe, but I usually operate version control > from inside my code editors, rather than remembering arcane > command line flags or firing up a different app just to do > version control. SVN is worse to integrate and much larger > footprint than CVS or many of its next-generation competitors. What does that have to do with license issues? There's integration between emacs and SVN, for example. Are you saying that SVN would have a smaller footprint if it used the GPL instead of an Apache/BSD-style license? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it certainly appears to me that license issues are irrelevant here. Anton |
From: MJ R. <mj...@ph...> - 2006-04-07 06:27:33
|
Anton van Straaten <an...@ap...> > Are you saying that SVN would have a smaller footprint if it > used the GPL instead of an Apache/BSD-style license? Not necessarily. > Perhaps I'm missing something, but it certainly appears to me > that license issues are irrelevant here. You're missing something. -- MJR/slef |
From: Noel W. <noe...@ya...> - 2006-03-12 20:49:38
|
--- MJ Ray <mj...@ph...> wrote: > Please can we have a CVS or distributed-VCS gateway to > the repository, at least for the database drivers? I'm only copying across things I'm working on, so I imagine the db drivers will stay in the CVS repository for a long time (I that the db interfaces are relatively stable and hence few updates are required). I would expect your editor to get svn support before any change is made -- all the editors I track in any way either support svn or have support in progress. N. Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com noel <at> untyped <dot> com AIM: noelhwelsh Blogs: http://monospaced.blogspot.com/ http://www.untyped.com/untyping/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: MJ R. <mj...@ph...> - 2006-03-12 19:12:34
|
Eric Hanchrow <of...@bl...> > MJ> If you hate CVS, you should hate subversion more. It only > MJ> adds changesets and shares or amplifies all the other > MJ> drawbacks. > > I honestly don't know why MJ would say that. Because it's my opinion. > I've _never_ heard of anyone who regretted moving from CVS to svn. You have now. > Plus, the subversion developers are the most generous and capable of > any Free Software project I've encountered. They'll patiently answer > your questions via the mailing list or IRC. The project is quite > active; they've made many releases since the initial one. While good, the activity of the project doesn't make it a better solution. CVS has made many releases since the initial one, but almost everyone acknowledges it has problems. Subversion does too. > [...] But before you switch to one, I'd recommend that you look at > http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot. It's ostensibly > about bitkeeper, but its arguments apply to all distributed revision > control systems. That paper by Subversion contributor Greg Hudson (see http://www.tigris.org/spotlight/greghudson.html ) seems to explicitly discuss bitkeeper's pyramid development model. That isn't shared by most current distributed RCSes, possibly for the reasons he outlines. A star or web model is more common. Why do you think it applies to all distributed RCSes? I don't mind what other people use, but please provide a gateway for non-Subversion read-write access to continue. Best wishes, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask |