Menu
▾
▴
squeak-vmdev — CVS-related Virtual Machine Development Issues
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(54) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
|
Aug
(23) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2004 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(26) |
Apr
(130) |
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(24) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(37) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(30) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(10) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: David T. L. <le...@ma...> - 2004-11-12 18:44:31
|
I cannot seem to get BFAV to receive any updates more recent than 03-Oct-2004. This is with a fresh Squeak3.7g2Full image, "Squeak3.7 of 4 September 2004 update 5989", with BFAV loaded from SqueakMap. I get the message "Last update failed" in the bottom message window of the BFAV PatchArchiveClient after doing a "load updates", which suggests some kind of problem getting a complete update from the server. Am I just doing something stupid, or is anybody else having a problem with this? Dave |
|
From: Bert F. <be...@im...> - 2004-11-12 16:06:52
|
Am 12.11.2004 um 21:15 schrieb le...@cc...:
> I've been using subversion for a while now (over a year) and now I
> always choose it over CVS when possible.[...]
> I don't know anything about darcs or about the different styles of VCS
> systems, so can't help there.
Can we interpret this as
CVS SVN DARCS
Lex -2 +2 0
? ;-)
- Bert -
|
|
From: <le...@cc...> - 2004-11-12 15:15:41
|
I've been using subversion for a while now (over a year) and now I always choose it over CVS when possible. Some nice features are: 1. It has built-in rename and copy operations. So if you name a file wrong, or put it in the wrong directory, you can fix it and the version control system doesn't get messed up. How many CVS projects have you all been on where you have a stupidly-named file but you leave it alone because you don't think it's worth losing the history of the file? 2. It has a tagging system that is dirt simple and that I actually understand. You simply do "copy" operations on directory trees. For example, you can have a "releases" directory, and then do things like "svn copy mainstuff releases/squeak-3.7.0" to make releases/squeak-3.7.0 have an entire copy of the tree saved into releases/squeak-3.7.0. 3. The commands for manipulating directories are a lot simpler than with CVS. They are things like "svn mkdir" and "svn rmdir". Overall, my experience suggests that the summary given by others is correct: it is CVS with some of the annoying parts cleaned up. As for accessing from Squeak, I expect that svn is harder to implement directly; CVS operates on one file at a time, while svn operations can be more complicated. It's not necessary to implement svn natively, though, given that we have OSProcess arounnd. Just fork-exec svn processes as necessary. Incidentally, if you do switch to SVN, be aware that you don't need to bother with all the HTTP-based stuff that they try to get you to use. The "svn+ssh" mode works just fine and is equivalent to accessing CVS over ssh the familiar way it is done on SourceForge. I don't know anything about darcs or about the different styles of VCS systems, so can't help there. -Lex |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 22:12:07
|
Hi all! Bert Freudenberg <be...@im...> wrote: > Am 11.11.2004 um 16:29 schrieb gor...@bl...: > > > But first things first - are everyone agreed on moving SF CVS to > > squeakfoundation.org CVS? > > May I amend this proposal to move SF CVS over to SqF SVN? Hehe, this is where we started - that was Tim's question/proposal. :) My point with first just moving CVS to our own server is that it should be simple to do and non-disruptive. Changing system will disrupt things, *whichever* system we choose. For example, the CVS GUI clients that people may be using today, or scripts people have will not work. > If we want to move the repository at all (and I think we want), then Yes, I think we all agree on moving at least. :) > that would be the perfect time to "upgrade". Subversion seems to be > very similar to CVS, but fixing its major flaws. Yes, but I have also read that it adds a few new flaws as well. But sure, all in all it is probably a step up from CVS no matter what. I just thought Darcs seemed so interesting and nice that I put it forward as an interesting venue. > Btw, we will also need two new mailing lists (vmdev and commit). Right. > - Bert - regards, Göran |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 22:12:02
|
Hi people! tim Rowledge <ti...@su...> wrote: > Andreas Raab wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options are? > > Here it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning (+2: > > strongly in favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices right > > now are CVS, Subversion (SVN) and Darcs: > > > > CVS SVN Darcs > > Andreas +1 +2 -1 > > Bert > > Goran +1 0 +2 My reasoning is something like this: - Svn doesn't give us anything substantially new, so choosing between CVS and Svn I say stay in CVS. I mean, why bother? - Darcs on the other hand actually would give us a model that seems much more in line with how we work. I think that would be worth trying. > > Ian > > John > > Ned > > Tim +1 +1 -2 (no ROS client) > > If it is feasible to write a Squeak based client for any of these that > doesn't rely on anything tricky (like some obscure ssh tunneling via a > wormhole back through two anonymising portals and a pigeon post) then > almost anything would be ok. Could you repeat the reasons for a Squeak client? Was it because of a lack of SSH on RiscOS? Darcs seems to only rely on Haskell and I thought I saw that GHC was available on RiscOS, or is it not? > Simple to use and get 'about right' is really important to me. CVS was a > pain because of all those special cases about 'this operation is not > directory recursive' etc wasting time. > > tim In this case I think Darcs is a great choice - it seems much easier to use. :) Btw, in a private email to Ian I managed to point out quite a few good reasons for Darcs - if it is ok with Ian I can repost it to the list. regards, Göran |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 22:12:01
|
Hi all! "Andreas Raab" <and...@gm...> wrote: > > AFAIK Darcs/Monotone doesn't limit us in that regard - I mean, we can > > just decide what is the "official" repo. > > In fact, there is nothing different from today - I could set up my own > > Squeak CVS and the confusion about which one is official would still > > exist. > > That's not my understanding of "decentral" then. Eh... my point is that there is nothing stopping us from declaring a single repository as the official repository if we use Darcs. > > Why don't we just move the CVS repo first, that way we at least get away > > from the restricitions on SF? > > Then we can always look at changing system after that, but then there is > > no real hurry. Deal? > > This sounds good to me. Good. regards, Göran |
|
From: Ned K. <ne...@bi...> - 2004-11-11 21:38:09
|
On Thursday 11 November 2004 10:35 am, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Guys, > > How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options are? > Here it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning (+2: strongly > in favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices right now are CVS, > Subversion (SVN) and Darcs: > > CVS SVN Darcs Ned +1 +1 0 -- Ned Konz http://bike-nomad.com |
|
From: John M M. <jo...@sm...> - 2004-11-11 21:34:19
|
>> CVS SVN Darcs > +1 +1 -2 (no ROS client) + 1 +1 -1 -- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh <jo...@sm...> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== === |
|
From: Bert F. <be...@im...> - 2004-11-11 20:21:29
|
Am 11.11.2004 um 20:17 schrieb tim Rowledge: > Andreas Raab wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options >> are? Here it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning >> (+2: strongly in favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices >> right now are CVS, Subversion (SVN) and Darcs: >> CVS SVN Darcs >> Andreas +1 +2 -1 >> Bert >> Goran >> Ian >> John >> Ned >> Tim +1 +1 -2 (no ROS client) Bert +1 +1 0 - Bert - |
|
From: tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-11-11 19:17:07
|
Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Guys, > > How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options are? > Here it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning (+2: > strongly in favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices right > now are CVS, Subversion (SVN) and Darcs: > > CVS SVN Darcs > Andreas +1 +2 -1 > Bert > Goran > Ian > John > Ned > Tim +1 +1 -2 (no ROS client) > If it is feasible to write a Squeak based client for any of these that doesn't rely on anything tricky (like some obscure ssh tunneling via a wormhole back through two anonymising portals and a pigeon post) then almost anything would be ok. Simple to use and get 'about right' is really important to me. CVS was a pain because of all those special cases about 'this operation is not directory recursive' etc wasting time. tim |
|
From: Andreas R. <and...@gm...> - 2004-11-11 18:36:16
|
Hi Guys,
How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options are? Here
it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning (+2: strongly in
favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices right now are CVS,
Subversion (SVN) and Darcs:
CVS SVN Darcs
Andreas +1 +2 -1
Bert
Goran
Ian
John
Ned
Tim
If I forgot someone/something please add. And as always, this is not a
scientific poll but just to get a rough feeling about what people think
right now (you can always change it later).
Cheers,
- Andreas
|
|
From: Bert F. <be...@im...> - 2004-11-11 17:39:31
|
Am 11.11.2004 um 16:29 schrieb gor...@bl...: > But first things first - are everyone agreed on moving SF CVS to > squeakfoundation.org CVS? May I amend this proposal to move SF CVS over to SqF SVN? If we want to move the repository at all (and I think we want), then that would be the perfect time to "upgrade". Subversion seems to be very similar to CVS, but fixing its major flaws. Btw, we will also need two new mailing lists (vmdev and commit). - Bert - |
|
From: Andreas R. <and...@gm...> - 2004-11-11 17:14:05
|
> AFAIK Darcs/Monotone doesn't limit us in that regard - I mean, we can > just decide what is the "official" repo. > In fact, there is nothing different from today - I could set up my own > Squeak CVS and the confusion about which one is official would still > exist. That's not my understanding of "decentral" then. > Why don't we just move the CVS repo first, that way we at least get away > from the restricitions on SF? > Then we can always look at changing system after that, but then there is > no real hurry. Deal? This sounds good to me. > PS. I am on IRC now. :) And I was just getting some sleep :-) Cheers, - Andreas |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 16:34:54
|
Hi! Ned Konz <ne...@bi...> wrote: > On Thursday 11 November 2004 7:13 am, Ian Piumarta wrote: > > ¾ ¾With CVS, both branches and working dirs are cheap. ¾Not so with > > ¾ ¾darcs: every branch and working dir costs at least two full trees. > > > > ¾ ¾The reason why people (me included) love CVS is that CVS is safe. > > ¾ ¾There is no way you can ever lose data that has been committed without > > ¾ ¾doing manual surgery on /var/cvs/. ¾This gives you a peace of mind > > ¾ ¾that is difficult to understand if you haven't been exposed to CVS. > > And from my point of view: > > I use CVS from four or five different operating systems. I have clients on all > of them that are stable. On my (main) Linux machine, I have more CVS clients > than I remember. Even on my Windows box I have two different CVS clients. I agree that darcs lack GUI clients. That is of course an issue. But it probably does have stable clients for all your OSes. > CVS over SSH works, and I can set it up without opening another hole in my > firewall. Darcs uses SSH too. No problem. And it is even better in this respect since it uses HTTP for publishing. > Our model of development is actually quite well suited to what CVS provides. > As Ian points out, we hardly have a chaotic model. Plus, our artifacts are > all relatively small files in trees, which is exactly what CVS deals with the > best. Well, I would still say darcs is a lot better. :) > My main complaints about CVS are: > - branches and merging can be confusing, depending on how much you use CVS and > how good your client program is Indeed, and this seems to be a very strong point of darcs. I have been struggling with branch merges in CVS in a big project a few years back and it was pretty nasty. > - pserver sucks from a security point of view, but you don't have to use it > (or you can provide it just for read-only uses like SF does) Not a problem with darcs. regards, Göran PS. Who knows, perhaps we can even play with having both? I mean, I could set up a non-official darcs-repo that is a mirror of the CVS repo. Sure, people wouldn't be able to commit into the official CVS repo using darcs directly - but I think you can work around that quite easily. This way people could play with it. |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 16:26:24
|
Hi Ian! First of all - note that I think we should *in any case* first just move the CVS from SF to squeakfoundation.org. :) Ian Piumarta <ian...@in...> wrote: > Hi Goran, > > [For those not familiar with the details, darcs = "changeset"-oriented > and CVS/Subversion = "tree"- or "snapshot"-oriented. Note that their > "changesets" are somewhat different to Smalltalk changesets.] Right. Though it seems to me that this doesn't necessarily mean that darcs is harder to use. It seems to be the opposite to me. > On 11 Nov 2004, at 05:13, gor...@bl... wrote: > > > darcs looks VERY good to me. Very good. So simple. So capable. Seems > > just damn superb. :) > > > For a lot of interesting notes: > > http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/ > > It's also interesting how one document can elicit very different > reactions. What stuck with me most from that page, and from those that > it referenced, included: > > http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/undiagnosing: > > * Changeset-oriented version control is more powerful, but it is > power which is largely unnecessary in all but the most chaotic of > development projects. First of all, I don't agree. :) Secondly, that document is defending Subversion (a centralized CVS-like system) against Tom Lord's "attack" (the author of Arch). So it doesn't even really discuss darcs in particular. Arch is complex - that everyone seems to agree on. But people are also saying that darcs is very, very simple. And so far I agree - even though I have only played with it a bit. But setting it up and getting going was trivial for me at least. > [Chaotic? We've had five people commit things to our CVS repository > during the last 12 months. Not once did any of them commit outside > their "assigned area of responsibility". We simply don't have any > conflicts, or -- for all intents and purposes -- merges, to deal with. > Everything we do is perfectly centralised.] But on the other hand I think there have been hacks and fixes floating around that have NOT been committed simply because people haven't bothered getting commit rights etc to SF CVS. Also note that AFAIK Ned is using his own branch, right? So... we all know CVS sucks at branches/merging. > * Changeset-oriented version control is harder to learn. In many > environments, a shallow learning curve is the most important > feature of a version control system. This is directly referencing Arch I think. Darcs doesn't at all seem that hard to learn to me, people testify to the contrary. > * Changeset-oriented version control is hard to get right. Perhaps > the best support for this statement can be found in a March 2003 > note from Larry McVoy to the linux-kernel list: > > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0303.1/0130.html > > [6 years into changeset and the implementers are themselves saying they > haven't got them right yet? Not encouraging.] Again I don't think the author of darcs agrees. > * Changeset-oriented version control can be built on top of a > tree-oriented foundation, although it will have all the > disadvantages listed above. As Tom himself notes, tree-oriented > storage is a dual to changeset-oriented storage. svk > (http://svk.elixus.org/) serves as a working prototype of changeset- > oriented version control implemented on top of Subversion. > > > http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2004-July/002351.html: > > With CVS, both branches and working dirs are cheap. Not so with > darcs: every branch and working dir costs at least two full trees. > > The reason why people (me included) love CVS is that CVS is safe. > There is no way you can ever lose data that has been committed without > doing manual surgery on /var/cvs/. This gives you a peace of mind > that is difficult to understand if you haven't been exposed to CVS. > > [I'll take "correctness" (and safety) over "utility" (and features and > _perceived_ simplicity) any day.] If you read that full thread it doesn't seem that simple. CVS is not "safe" (non atomic commits, stale locks yaddayadda) and darcs doesn't seem to be "unsafe", sure there seems to be constructed scenarios that could cause loss of information, but they are pretty complex. > Darcs, on the other hand, doesn't enforce any invariants except from > honouring patch dependencies. Patches flow randomly between repos, > and it takes a lot of discipline to ensure they flow the way you want > them to. > > > I'm not saying darcs isn't excellent at what it does, but rather that > what it does isn't at all what we need. > > Cheers, > Ian Well, I don't agree. It seems to me that darcs has a whole range of advantages: 1. Trivial to work offline and trivial to create your own branch etc without even contacting any centralized person to give you an account and so on. You just suck down a full copy of a repo and off you go all locally. 2. Trivial to publish your own repo, just http - no firewall problems, no special ports needed to be opened etc. 3. All the CVS classic problems gone like renaming files, moving files etc. 4. Much simpler to use for the casual user, at least that is my impression without actual usage to put behind it. :) ...and probably more things I can't come up with just now. :) But anyway, I am not one of the regular VM committers so you should of course decide among yourselves. I just like to learn darcs because it seems so damn nice. :) Btw, just noted that my full conversion of the Squeak SF CVS repo into a darcs repo just completed, time to play... But first things first - are everyone agreed on moving SF CVS to squeakfoundation.org CVS? regards, Göran |
|
From: Ned K. <ne...@bi...> - 2004-11-11 16:15:18
|
On Thursday 11 November 2004 7:13 am, Ian Piumarta wrote: > =A0 =A0With CVS, both branches and working dirs are cheap. =A0Not so with > =A0 =A0darcs: every branch and working dir costs at least two full trees. > > =A0 =A0The reason why people (me included) love CVS is that CVS is safe. > =A0 =A0There is no way you can ever lose data that has been committed wit= hout > =A0 =A0doing manual surgery on /var/cvs/. =A0This gives you a peace of mi= nd > =A0 =A0that is difficult to understand if you haven't been exposed to CVS. And from my point of view: I use CVS from four or five different operating systems. I have clients on = all=20 of them that are stable. On my (main) Linux machine, I have more CVS client= s=20 than I remember. Even on my Windows box I have two different CVS clients. CVS over SSH works, and I can set it up without opening another hole in my= =20 firewall. Our model of development is actually quite well suited to what CVS provides= =2E=20 As Ian points out, we hardly have a chaotic model. Plus, our artifacts are= =20 all relatively small files in trees, which is exactly what CVS deals with t= he=20 best. My main complaints about CVS are: =2D branches and merging can be confusing, depending on how much you use CV= S and=20 how good your client program is =2D pserver sucks from a security point of view, but you don't have to use = it=20 (or you can provide it just for read-only uses like SF does) =2D-=20 Ned Konz http://bike-nomad.com |
|
From: Ian P. <ian...@in...> - 2004-11-11 15:13:57
|
Hi Goran, [For those not familiar with the details, darcs = "changeset"-oriented and CVS/Subversion = "tree"- or "snapshot"-oriented. Note that their "changesets" are somewhat different to Smalltalk changesets.] On 11 Nov 2004, at 05:13, gor...@bl... wrote: > darcs looks VERY good to me. Very good. So simple. So capable. Seems > just damn superb. :) > For a lot of interesting notes: > http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/ It's also interesting how one document can elicit very different reactions. What stuck with me most from that page, and from those that it referenced, included: http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/undiagnosing: * Changeset-oriented version control is more powerful, but it is power which is largely unnecessary in all but the most chaotic of development projects. [Chaotic? We've had five people commit things to our CVS repository during the last 12 months. Not once did any of them commit outside their "assigned area of responsibility". We simply don't have any conflicts, or -- for all intents and purposes -- merges, to deal with. Everything we do is perfectly centralised.] * Changeset-oriented version control is harder to learn. In many environments, a shallow learning curve is the most important feature of a version control system. * Changeset-oriented version control is hard to get right. Perhaps the best support for this statement can be found in a March 2003 note from Larry McVoy to the linux-kernel list: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0303.1/0130.html [6 years into changeset and the implementers are themselves saying they haven't got them right yet? Not encouraging.] * Changeset-oriented version control can be built on top of a tree-oriented foundation, although it will have all the disadvantages listed above. As Tom himself notes, tree-oriented storage is a dual to changeset-oriented storage. svk (http://svk.elixus.org/) serves as a working prototype of changeset- oriented version control implemented on top of Subversion. http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2004-July/002351.html: With CVS, both branches and working dirs are cheap. Not so with darcs: every branch and working dir costs at least two full trees. The reason why people (me included) love CVS is that CVS is safe. There is no way you can ever lose data that has been committed without doing manual surgery on /var/cvs/. This gives you a peace of mind that is difficult to understand if you haven't been exposed to CVS. [I'll take "correctness" (and safety) over "utility" (and features and _perceived_ simplicity) any day.] Darcs, on the other hand, doesn't enforce any invariants except from honouring patch dependencies. Patches flow randomly between repos, and it takes a lot of discipline to ensure they flow the way you want them to. I'm not saying darcs isn't excellent at what it does, but rather that what it does isn't at all what we need. Cheers, Ian |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 14:13:52
|
Hi! Bert Freudenberg <be...@im...> wrote: [SNIP] > > Someone already did this a while back - but since there was no > > announcement or anything it kinda "got lost". Who did it and could that > > someone do it again? :) > > I didn't, but in principle you just need to copy the nightly tarball > from > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/squeak-cvsroot.tar.bz2 > > It's described here > > http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php? > docid=768&group_id=1#nightlytarballs Ah, great! Thanks! Btw, I have installed, played with and investigated further and damn it - darcs looks VERY good to me. Very good. So simple. So capable. Seems just damn superb. :) For a lot of interesting notes: http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/ regards, Göran |
|
From: Bert F. <be...@im...> - 2004-11-11 13:41:14
|
Am 11.11.2004 um 11:47 schrieb go...@kr...: > Hi again! > > (Sending only to the squeak-vmdev list, I think all are there possibly > for the exception of Cees) > > "Andreas Raab" <and...@gm...> wrote: > [SNIP] >> Both of the above are thumbs-down from my POV. Darcs just seems ... >> odd and >> there isn't much to read about "how it works" (if you have a good url >> for >> the "theory of patches" I'd be interested in finding out more). > > http://www.darcs.net/manual/node9.html > > Anyway, I still think darcs looks pretty darn interesting to test. But > as I said, we can and should move the CVS repo first "as is". > > Someone already did this a while back - but since there was no > announcement or anything it kinda "got lost". Who did it and could that > someone do it again? :) I didn't, but in principle you just need to copy the nightly tarball from http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/squeak-cvsroot.tar.bz2 It's described here http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php? docid=768&group_id=1#nightlytarballs - Bert - |
|
From: <go...@kr...> - 2004-11-11 11:44:06
|
Hi again! (Sending only to the squeak-vmdev list, I think all are there possibly for the exception of Cees) "Andreas Raab" <and...@gm...> wrote: [SNIP] > Both of the above are thumbs-down from my POV. Darcs just seems ... odd and > there isn't much to read about "how it works" (if you have a good url for > the "theory of patches" I'd be interested in finding out more). http://www.darcs.net/manual/node9.html Anyway, I still think darcs looks pretty darn interesting to test. But as I said, we can and should move the CVS repo first "as is". Someone already did this a while back - but since there was no announcement or anything it kinda "got lost". Who did it and could that someone do it again? :) regards, Göran |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-11 08:57:04
|
Hi all! "Andreas Raab" <and...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > >> we started yacking about this stuff way back in march and don't seem to > >> have come to any conclusion yet. Since I'm getting bits together for the > >> first 3.8 VMMaker package I'd like to know where we are going to go. > >> > >> >From my limited understanding of these things I get the impression that > >> Subversion would be a better choice than CVS. It at least _claims_ to > >> do better on some of the irritating things. Does anybody disagree > >> strongly? Does anyone know if it is amenable to a nice Squeak > >> client solution? Goran, you did SqCVS (well nearly, remember...) would > >> you feel up to SQuVersion? > > > > Well, I have now spent a few hours looking at the available alternatives > > and I am actually leaning towards Darcs (or possibly Monotone) instead > > of Subversion. They are both distributed solutions and seems to fit us > > better than a centralized solution. > > I'm not convinced of that. I think the CVS server suited us just fine and I > wouldn't mind continuing to use CVS (it has definitely the best clients) > except for the feature list of subversion - it seems that the guys who did > it really understand what's wrong with CVS. I think all the systems I have looked at have "fixed" the problems with CVS. :) > > http://abridgegame.org/darcs > > http://www.venge.net/monotone > > > > (I rejected Arch due to high complexity and problems on Win32 or other > > non POSIX platforms. > > Both of the above are thumbs-down from my POV. Darcs just seems ... odd and > there isn't much to read about "how it works" (if you have a good url for > the "theory of patches" I'd be interested in finding out more). I will come back when I have tested it, I intend to test it anyway. > Monotone > looks cool (with p2p synchronization and such) but I think that the current > set of maintainers prefers some control over the sources that are considered > "official". AFAIK Darcs/Monotone doesn't limit us in that regard - I mean, we can just decide what is the "official" repo. In fact, there is nothing different from today - I could set up my own Squeak CVS and the confusion about which one is official would still exist. > >> Given a decision to move that way, where is a good place to host it? Is > >> it plausible on SqueakFoundation.org? > > > > Yes, it is. If you give me a day or two I will try Darcs and see if I > > can set it up at SqF to test. > > Err ... no thank you - how about subversion and/or cvs instead? ;-) Why don't we just move the CVS repo first, that way we at least get away from the restricitions on SF? Then we can always look at changing system after that, but then there is no real hurry. Deal? > Cheers, > - Andreas regards, Göran PS. I am on IRC now. :) |
|
From: Andreas R. <and...@gm...> - 2004-11-11 05:51:44
|
Hi Guys, >> we started yacking about this stuff way back in march and don't seem to >> have come to any conclusion yet. Since I'm getting bits together for the >> first 3.8 VMMaker package I'd like to know where we are going to go. >> >> >From my limited understanding of these things I get the impression that >> Subversion would be a better choice than CVS. It at least _claims_ to >> do better on some of the irritating things. Does anybody disagree >> strongly? Does anyone know if it is amenable to a nice Squeak >> client solution? Goran, you did SqCVS (well nearly, remember...) would >> you feel up to SQuVersion? > > Well, I have now spent a few hours looking at the available alternatives > and I am actually leaning towards Darcs (or possibly Monotone) instead > of Subversion. They are both distributed solutions and seems to fit us > better than a centralized solution. I'm not convinced of that. I think the CVS server suited us just fine and I wouldn't mind continuing to use CVS (it has definitely the best clients) except for the feature list of subversion - it seems that the guys who did it really understand what's wrong with CVS. > http://abridgegame.org/darcs > http://www.venge.net/monotone > > (I rejected Arch due to high complexity and problems on Win32 or other > non POSIX platforms. Both of the above are thumbs-down from my POV. Darcs just seems ... odd and there isn't much to read about "how it works" (if you have a good url for the "theory of patches" I'd be interested in finding out more). Monotone looks cool (with p2p synchronization and such) but I think that the current set of maintainers prefers some control over the sources that are considered "official". >> Given a decision to move that way, where is a good place to host it? Is >> it plausible on SqueakFoundation.org? > > Yes, it is. If you give me a day or two I will try Darcs and see if I > can set it up at SqF to test. Err ... no thank you - how about subversion and/or cvs instead? ;-) Cheers, - Andreas |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-11-10 12:57:04
|
Hi guys! Tim Rowledge <ti...@su...> wrote: > OK Guys, > we started yacking about this stuff way back in march and don't seem to > have come to any conclusion yet. Since I'm getting bits together for the > first 3.8 VMMaker package I'd like to know where we are going to go. > > >From my limited understanding of these things I get the impression that > Subversion would be a better choice than CVS. It at least _claims_ to > do better on some of the irritating things. Does anybody disagree > strongly? Does anyone know if it is amenable to a nice Squeak > client solution? Goran, you did SqCVS (well nearly, remember...) would > you feel up to SQuVersion? Well, I have now spent a few hours looking at the available alternatives and I am actually leaning towards Darcs (or possibly Monotone) instead of Subversion. They are both distributed solutions and seems to fit us better than a centralized solution. http://abridgegame.org/darcs http://www.venge.net/monotone (I rejected Arch due to high complexity and problems on Win32 or other non POSIX platforms. > Given a decision to move that way, where is a good place to host it? Is > it plausible on SqueakFoundation.org? Yes, it is. If you give me a day or two I will try Darcs and see if I can set it up at SqF to test. regards, Göran |
|
From: Tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-11-09 23:57:38
|
OK Guys, we started yacking about this stuff way back in march and don't seem to have come to any conclusion yet. Since I'm getting bits together for the first 3.8 VMMaker package I'd like to know where we are going to go. From my limited understanding of these things I get the impression that Subversion would be a better choice than CVS. It at least _claims_ to do better on some of the irritating things. Does anybody disagree strongly? Does anyone know if it is amenable to a nice Squeak client solution? Goran, you did SqCVS (well nearly, remember...) would you feel up to SQuVersion? Given a decision to move that way, where is a good place to host it? Is it plausible on SqueakFoundation.org? tim -- Tim Rowledge, ti...@su..., http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim ZAP! Process discontinued. Enter any 12-digit prime number to resume. |
|
From: John M M. <jo...@sm...> - 2004-11-01 22:48:02
|
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~eujin/papers/asrandom/ In OpenBSD you can now get back a more randon distribution of the starting address for memory. Thus much more likely to go over the 2GB boundary on 32bit applications in a 64bit machine, or have high-bits in a 64bit application -- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh <jo...@sm...> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== === |
13 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
