Re: [freenet-chat] Revision control systems

Also, don't the others have far easier merging?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> At the risk of repeating myself - I think we should be conservative,  
> and that means Subversion.
> 
> My experience with distributed approaches has been one of confusion.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> On 22 Sep 2005, at 18:53, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 
> >There is a cvs2arch convertor. This is a bit of a hack though. It only
> >works with the HEAD branch (which is okay):
> >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-08/msg00198.html
> >
> >However, arch may be dead. It *was* very popular, and *did* have a  
> >very
> >active community, last year, but there is only one person (tom  
> >lord) on
> >the savannah dev list, and rumours of it dying a death after he  
> >left. It
> >is also probably a bit complex to use. Also can be quite slow  
> >fetching a
> >revision. However it is post-1.0, and widely used, so presumably  
> >fairly
> >stable. Also does not support Windows well.
> >
> >Also there is a more general and stable convertor that can move  
> >between
> >CVS, ArX, Darcs, and Monotone:
> >http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor
> >
> >Darcs is interesting, although it has a couple of issues:
> >http://abridgegame.org/darcs/
> >http://lwn.net/Articles/110516/#Comments
> >Darcs does not have cryptographic signatures, which is an interesting
> >side-issue. Also can be slow in merging. Can import from CVS, Arch or
> >Subversion. More on darcs and arch [2] - search for darcs.
> >
> >ArX is also promising:
> >http://www.nongnu.org/arx/
> >Has all the basic features, should be reasonably simple to use, is  
> >more
> >or less fully distributed but slow over high latency networking.
> >Hopefully this won't be a problem for Freenet 0.7.
> >
> >So, does anyone have any opinions? Anyone used any of these? My
> >impression is that Subversion is essentially the same architecture as
> >CVS; it doesn't have any of the modern features such as proper
> >distribution/p2p support. It is however a significant improvement on
> >CVS, as Ian has pointed out.
> >
> >IMHO we should choose a CVS replacement, and use it. Hopefully  
> >bandwidth
> >issues from anonymous checkouts won't be too big a problem; dodo has
> >15GB/mo. Personally I am of the opinion that something with proper
> >distribution support i.e. not Subversion, would be better because it
> >would be easier to adapt to Freenet, and because it would help third
> >parties who are on the periphery and therefore don't have CVS write
> >access. All the above (and many more) have atomic commits. ArX and  
> >Darcs
> >claim to have good merging. According to [1], Subversion's merging is
> >inferior to anything modern.
> >
> >[1] yet another link, rather old:
> >http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/01/29/scm_overview.html
> >another more recent comparison:
> >http://www.nongnu.org/arx/codecon/codecon.html
> >[2] another comparison
> >http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm.html
> >
> >Anyone with experience in any of the above?
> >
> >With most of the above, we can provide a read-only repository via HTTP
> >with no extra modules needed, so anonymous checkout isn't  
> >necessarily a
> >problem either. There are also public options such as  
> >sourcecontrol.net.
> >Sourceforge and savannah can do arch (and presumably bazaar) also.
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> >>http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch
> >>http://www.gnuarch.org/arch/arch-overview.html
> >>
> >>On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 05:27:36PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/
> >>>
> >>>Anyone had any experience? There is already a port to freenet,  
> >>>and the
> >>>guy who wrote it might perhaps be persuaded to update it; if not, we
> >>>might, eventually. The description sounds good.
> >>>
> >>-- 
> >>Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
> >>Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
> >>ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>chat mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
> >>Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ 
> >>listinfo/chat
> >>Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
> >>
> >
> >-- 
> >Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
> >Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
> >ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
> >_______________________________________________
> >chat mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
> >Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ 
> >listinfo/chat
> >Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
> 

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDMx7dHzsuOmVUoi0RAm+1AJ4hU39jr2J7k+7EMkZM+oeLvDrhLQCgscC7
cXJ4ZgYJTzWUdaSYG8HjVXg=
=BKn6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----