Re: Moving CVS repo to something else?

I think this discussion boils down to "what happens under windows?"

SVN works *very* nicely under windows, thanks to Tortoise, but that is just one data observation.

I have started to use git and I am pretty happy with it.  I think I may be happy with darcs and/or any of the other distributed  SCMs.  But the question stands: what *really* works under windows?

I am just asking.  I do not have an opinion.

Marco



On Feb 18, 2011, at 16:16 , Raymond Toy wrote:

> On 2/18/11 9:59 AM, Sam Steingold wrote:
>> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
>> that has been posted to gmane.lisp.clocc.devel as well.
>> 
>>> * Raymond Toy <[email protected]> [2011-02-17 23:02:13 -0500]:
>>> 
>>> On 1/31/11 9:33 AM, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>> As you might be aware, Sourceforge has been the target of some attacks. 
>>>> In the blog message <https://sourceforge.net/blog/>, it is mentioned
>>>> that soureforge is considering the end-of-life for CVS support.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps it's time to move clocc to another version control system.  I
>>>> think sourceforge supports at least subversion, mercurial, and git. 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not too picky.  Any of these three is fine with me.  The person
>>>> doing the work gets to most say in the selected system. :-)
>>> No opinions?  I did see that Sam asked this same question in 2009, and
>>> suggested hg.
>>> 
>>> I don't care too much which it is.
>> bzr exists only because rms dubbed it a "gnu project" and moved emacs to
>> it (it is dog slow, emacs-devel is full of complaints).
>> darcs is too obscure; no large project uses it (AFAIK).
>> git consists of 140 executables (bad design) and sucks on windows.
>> this leaves us with mercurial (hg), which I have been using for a few
>> years and quite happy with: it is fast, featureful, and portable.
>> 
> I would not want to use bzr or darcs or subversion.  (I've never used
> bzr or darcs.  I find that I don't like subversion very much.  Can't
> wrap my head around branches and tags.)
> 
> Is it still true that git is 140 executables?  I don't think it is
> anymore, but I didn't check in any detail.  I have no experience with
> git on Windows, either.
> 
> Hg is ok with me. 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
> _______________________________________________
> clocc-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clocc-devel
> 

--
Marco Antoniotti



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb