Menu
▾
▴
squeak-vmdev
|
From: tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-03-04 00:07:12
|
A while ago Cees did the initial setup to allow us the option of moving our source code archive away from SourceForge now that they seem to regard Squeak as some sort of unwlecome visitor. We should probably come to some conclusion about whether the move should happen. I'd imagine that the chief advantage would be more personal service; Cees is 'one of us' and supports Squeak in many ways. The main disadvantage is probably that Cees has other things to do and presumably smaller resources than SF. (Does anyone know?) What would we like from a CVS archive? Can we obtain it better by dropping SF? tim |
|
From: Andreas R. <and...@gm...> - 2004-03-04 00:21:42
|
Really, I don't care all that much. There are exactly two features at SF that I like: It's the ability to browse through a CVS repository via the web which is *very* helpful if you just want check a particular file without having to do the whole CVS stuff and the file releases which allows people to get this stuff from "around the corner". Other than that the only thing I care about is uptime and Cees has been pretty good on that in general. Cheers, - Andreas ----- Original Message ----- From: "tim Rowledge" <ti...@su...> To: <squ...@li...> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:53 AM Subject: [Squeak-VMdev] SourceForge or SqueakForge? > A while ago Cees did the initial setup to allow us the option of moving > our source code archive away from SourceForge now that they seem to > regard Squeak as some sort of unwlecome visitor. We should probably come > to some conclusion about whether the move should happen. > > I'd imagine that the chief advantage would be more personal service; > Cees is 'one of us' and supports Squeak in many ways. The main > disadvantage is probably that Cees has other things to do and presumably > smaller resources than SF. (Does anyone know?) > > What would we like from a CVS archive? Can we obtain it better by > dropping SF? > > tim > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Squeak-VMdev mailing list > Squ...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squeak-vmdev > |
|
From: Ian P. <ian...@in...> - 2004-03-04 01:09:00
|
> From: "tim Rowledge" <ti...@su...> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:53 AM > Subject: [Squeak-VMdev] SourceForge or SqueakForge? > >> A while ago Cees did the initial setup to allow us the option of >> moving >> our source code archive away from SourceForge now that they seem to >> regard Squeak as some sort of unwlecome visitor. We should probably >> come >> to some conclusion about whether the move should happen. I've stopped committing anything to CVS on SF since two months ago, when Cees et al pointed out the ridiculous position of the SF people on our "license [non-] problems" and suggested we drop them. >> I'd imagine that the chief advantage would be more personal service; >> Cees is 'one of us' and supports Squeak in many ways. The main >> disadvantage is probably that Cees has other things to do and >> presumably >> smaller resources than SF. (Does anyone know?) A CVS repository takes almost no time to set up, and then runs itself. (The only "setup" required is related to creating cvs accounts for those people who should have check-in privileges, and currently that would seem to concern no more than four people on the planet.) (All Cees has to do is press the Big Red Button on the front panel whenever the server crashes. ;) >> What would we like from a CVS archive? Err... "man cvs"? ;) ;) ;) >> Can we obtain it better by dropping SF? Well... On 04 Mar 2004, at 01:07, Andreas Raab wrote: > There are exactly two features at SF that I like: It's the ability to > browse through a CVS repository via the web I've set up cvsweb on two systems in the past. (Andreas has even used one of them.) Modulo a couple of insignificant caveats, it's *trivial* (one cgi script to install, 1 line to modify to tell it where to look for cvsroot, and max 2 or 3 lines to modify in the httpd.conf file to give the script the permissions it needs). After that it "just works". As above, no "Cees intervention" required, ever. FWIW, SF uses cvsweb to front their browsable repository. If we made our own, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. > and the file releases which allows people to get this stuff from > "around the corner". One web page (fronting the CVS web and the "release archives"), and some kind of restricted "Squeak release engineering" account on the server machine (or other, given NFS/whatever) to manage those archives, are all that's really required. > Other than that the only thing I care about is uptime and Cees has > been pretty good on that in general. Seconded. I've no complaints at all in that respect. Cheers, Ian |
|
From: tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-03-04 02:17:38
|
Ian Piumarta wrote: > I've stopped committing anything to CVS on SF since two months ago, when > Cees et al pointed out the ridiculous position of the SF people on our > "license [non-] problems" and suggested we drop them. Same action, different reasons - I simply don't have a machine currently on the net that runs a CVS that I care to use. Still trying to find a place to buy on the Island... > > A CVS repository takes almost no time to set up, and then runs itself. > (The only "setup" required is related to creating cvs accounts for those > people who should have check-in privileges, and currently that would > seem to concern no more than four people on the planet.) Hopefully that makes it something that Cees will be happy to handle. Actually, is Cees on this sublist? >>> What would we like from a CVS archive? > > > Err... "man cvs"? ;) ;) ;) That, surely, tells us what we get rather than what we'd like... > >>> Can we obtain it better by dropping SF? Sounds like a near unanimous opinion then. John? tim |
|
From: John M M. <jo...@sm...> - 2004-03-04 02:56:15
|
I've no issues with it. We should leave the project page on sourceforge tho (drop the source files), and point to our new site. Just makes it easier for folks who find old links to sourceforge for squeak, or if they are hunting for smalltalk etc on sourceforge. On Mar 3, 2004, at 6:04 PM, tim Rowledge wrote: > >>>> Can we obtain it better by dropping SF? > Sounds like a near unanimous opinion then. John? > > tim -- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh <jo...@sm...> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== === |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-03-04 08:26:42
|
Hi guys! Just wanted t o say a few things since I have set up and managed some CVS repos. - Setting up a CVS server at Cees place is trivial. - Setting up the web frontend Andreas mentions is also simple, I have used it at a customer. - Perhaps it is time though to consider using Subversion instead. It sounds like a very good replacement which lacks the most glaring problems in CVS. Either way, it would feel better to have full control of this at Cees place instead of at SF. It also means we can easier integrate this stuff into the rest of Squeak's web presence - like for example having nightly tar-balls etc. regards, Göran |
|
From: tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-03-07 19:52:55
|
OK, it sounds like a reasonable concensus for moving. Is Cees on this list? Or is the explicit cc: needed? I hope that's a working address... tim |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-03-07 23:05:08
|
Hi guys! tim Rowledge <ti...@su...> wrote: > OK, it sounds like a reasonable concensus for moving. > > Is Cees on this list? Or is the explicit cc: needed? I hope that's a > working address... Not, sure - I threw in cg...@tr... instead. I did check with Cees on IRC the other day - he is game. Anyway, Cees - how do we proceed in the simplest way? Will you set up a new virtual box, or should we use the one we/I have for SM etc? If someone else could take the time to do this I would be grateful - if noone has the experience needed for CVS, then I might squeeze it in of course. Or Ken/Marcus might help perhaps. regards, Göran |
|
From: Cees de G. <cg...@tr...> - 2004-03-08 00:00:09
|
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 23:47, gor...@bl... wrote: > Anyway, Cees - how do we proceed in the simplest way? Will you set up a > new virtual box, or should we use the one we/I have for SM etc? > Use the current one - if it necessitates more memory, just shout. One of the advantages of dressing things up on this single VM is that in the case The InternetOne (my ISP) goes bust, we can easily transfer the whole setup to one of the relatively cheap User-Mode Linux hosting providers out there. I'm not expecting it, but it's not completely unlikely either (still harsh economic times) so I'm preparing SqF for this contingency; it would be too bad if all the work put into this would fall on the floor just because some obscure Dutch ISP can't manage to survive, wouldn't it? I'm still in personal circumstances that don't allow me to put a lot of time into this, so I can't help out a lot with the setup. But IIRC, we have most of it running already, not? Regards, Cees |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-03-08 00:06:12
|
Hi all! Cees de Groot <cg...@tr...> wrote: > On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 23:47, gor...@bl... wrote: > > Anyway, Cees - how do we proceed in the simplest way? Will you set up a > > new virtual box, or should we use the one we/I have for SM etc? > > Use the current one - if it necessitates more memory, just shout. I migh do that. :) > One of > the advantages of dressing things up on this single VM is that in the > case The InternetOne (my ISP) goes bust, we can easily transfer the > whole setup to one of the relatively cheap User-Mode Linux hosting > providers out there. I'm not expecting it, but it's not completely > unlikely either (still harsh economic times) so I'm preparing SqF for > this contingency; it would be too bad if all the work put into this > would fall on the floor just because some obscure Dutch ISP can't manage > to survive, wouldn't it? Also - since it is just a Debian machine - I could always rig one at Bluefish too. > I'm still in personal circumstances that don't allow me to put a lot of > time into this, so I can't help out a lot with the setup. But IIRC, we > have most of it running already, not? Yes, we do. I can look into it. > Regards, > > Cees regards, Göran |
|
From: Tim R. <ti...@su...> - 2004-03-27 07:36:42
|
So are we going to do this? If so, somebody that can handle any setup still pending will need to step up soon - or tell us that nothing needs doing of course. If we're going to switch for 3.7b we need to move fairly soon. We need to decide upon the setup, allowed users etc. Can we move the SF archive and history across? Do we want to? I have a particular and hopefully temporary problem in that I have no practical way to upload anything for now. The RISC OS cvs cannot yet cope with the ssh stuff that SF is using, I can't make any Mac version do much and my winxp laptop refuses to talk to my network - and I probably couldn't cope with a winxp cvs anyway. Doing anything with that damn thing is like dentistry with pain enhancers. My linux box is buried in a storage unit so I can't even fall back on the tacky cmdline cvs it has installed. Hopefully somebody will feel sorry enough for me to offer to proxy for me in some manner. Or is there some way to have cvs using :server: (via rsh) or :pserver: and still be acceptably safe? RISC OS cvs can handle those. Slightly OT, can anyone point me to any doc that might explain to me how to keep a local cvs system for my day to day hacking and yet upload to SqF when appropriate? Alternatively, Goran (I think) suggested maybe using subversion; any other opinions? Sometimes I think printing out in barcode and pickling in peat might be simpler. tim -- Tim Rowledge, ti...@su..., http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Choose variable names that will not be confused. |
|
From: <gor...@bl...> - 2004-03-29 07:48:38
|
Hi guys! (Was offline this weekend) Tim Rowledge <ti...@su...> wrote: > So are we going to do this? If so, somebody that can handle any setup > still pending will need to step up soon - or tell us that nothing needs > doing of course. > > If we're going to switch for 3.7b we need to move fairly soon. We need > to decide upon the setup, allowed users etc. Can we move the SF archive > and history across? Do we want to? > > I have a particular and hopefully temporary problem in that I have no > practical way to upload anything for now. The RISC OS cvs cannot yet > cope with the ssh stuff that SF is using, I can't make any Mac version > do much and my winxp laptop refuses to talk to my network - and I > probably couldn't cope with a winxp cvs anyway. Doing anything with > that damn thing is like dentistry with pain enhancers. My linux box is > buried in a storage unit so I can't even fall back on the tacky cmdline > cvs it has installed. Hopefully somebody will feel sorry enough for me > to offer to proxy for me in some manner. Or is there some way to have > cvs using :server: (via rsh) or :pserver: and still be acceptably safe? > RISC OS cvs can handle those. > > Slightly OT, can anyone point me to any doc that might explain to me > how to keep a local cvs system for my day to day hacking and yet upload > to SqF when appropriate? > > Alternatively, Goran (I think) suggested maybe using subversion; any > other opinions? Sometimes I think printing out in barcode and pickling > in peat might be simpler. > > tim Well, I think we should move. If we do then we can make whatever decisions we want regarding SSH etc.. Regarding subversion - I just wanted to mention that we could switch to something better - and perhaps Arch would be a better choice btw. But I don't think we should do the switch right now - let's move first. :) We will also move the downloadable files and mack up some simply frontend for them, a Swiki or similar is perhaps the "simplest thing". I could take a look at this at the earliest tonight. But I will only do it if people speak up and say "Yes please!". :) No point in putting in time if we don't all agree. And of course, if someone else could spend the time I would be really grateful - I really, really need to sit down with SM instead and I have no daytime to spare. 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: <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: 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...> - 2004-11-11 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 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 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: <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: 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: <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: 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: 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: <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 |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X