-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Benoit SIGOURE on 9/22/2007 4:15 AM:
> [Benefits]
You are forgetting my most important benefit - git provides a cvsserver.
In other words, it is possible to connect a CVS client to the git
repository on savannah (once we can get that tur
On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrej Prsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Specifically, I did switch from CVS to Subversion about a year ago
and
never regretted it. Now I would really like to learn what people
have to
say about git.
[SNIP: branching made easy and powerful]
Andrej Prsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Specifically, I did switch from CVS to Subversion about a year ago and
> never regretted it. Now I would really like to learn what people have to
> say about git.
Branching and merging are spectacular. That's the main thing in git that
really impressed m
> Anyway, this is off-topic for this list, so let's stop here. We'll see
> if this sudden move to git, proves sustainability (I don't have any
> experiences with git - But having not been able to avoid hg/mercurial
> in recent past, I came to the conclusion that hg's usability is not
> in a shape t
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 17:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > True, but do you feel subversion is progress?
>
> Absolutely. Significant progress.
Well my experiences with SVN are different. Esp.
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 02:51 -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> Maybe you can switch to Savannah's evil twin, Gna. http://gna.org/
The software I work on is GNU make. I don't think the FSF (who holds
the copyright) would be too thrilled about it moving to Gna :-).
--
-
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm fairly certain that's not the case. The primary advantage of CVS
>> that got people to switch to it was that it did considerably more than
>> RCS and had considerably more available administ
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> You don't HAVE to install all 132 git-* commands. just plain "git" is
> just hardlinked to all those different names. If you're happy to
> ditch the git file manager, you can just intall 'git' and access its
> subcommands as "git log" / "git pull" / etc. instead of "git-
On 9/20/07, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very interesting. If various projects flee from CVS to some other
> version control system then I hope that the projects I am involved
> with flee to the same system rather than many different systems.
AFAICT the fleeing is mostly to exactl
Paul Smith wrote:
Savannah does not support SubversionSo, I'm stuck with CVS,
Maybe you can switch to Savannah's evil twin, Gna. http://gna.org/
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> I think in practice adoption drives portability more than the other way
> >> around. I don't think CVS became popular because it wa
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think in practice adoption drives portability more than the other way
>> around. I don't think CVS became popular because it was portable;
> Well, I think it became popular, because it had be
Hello,
First, can we agree to keep an (at least) read-only CVS mirror
for Autoconf running for, say, a couple of years? Thanks.
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:18:23AM CEST:
>
> Git seems to be quite new and still very Linux centric. It is not
> even included in the 'ports
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think in practice adoption drives portability more than the other way
> around. I don't think CVS became popular because it was portable;
Well, I think it became popular, because it had been and still IS lean,
simple to use/administrate a
My problem with all these tools is the only ones that seem to have any
serious attempts at portability so far--and by "portability" I include
ports to Windows that are relatively easy to install and _run well_--are
CVS and Subversion.
Of those, Savannah does not support Subversion.
So, I'm stuck
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bob Friesenhahn on 9/19/2007 9:52 PM:
> Very interesting. If various projects flee from CVS to some other
> version control system then I hope that the projects I am involved with
> flee to the same system rather than many different syste
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have looked at Subversion and find its installation to be rather
> unwieldly, requiring many additional packages to be installed of
> particular versions. Subversion seems to use a rather exotic
> implementation rather than a fairly simple one like
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
Agreed. There are a few other interesting contenders out there with
significant install bases that probably won't go away soon (Mercurial is
being backed by Sun, for example, and bzr by Canonical), and I expect
Subversion will persist for quite a while f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
> As far as the plethora of systems in use I believe that a consolidation
> is occurring. In particular I see that Git is gaining a larger and
> larger community of developers every day. People will always argue
> endlessly that abc is better or worse than
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Git seems to be quite new and still very Linux centric.
But I expect that Eric is using it on MS however. That's about as far
from GNU/Linux as one can get. :-)
> It is not even included in the 'ports' collection on my FreeBSD
> system (only GNU 'git' is there which the
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Eric Blake wrote:
What is the purpose of converting to git?
Primarily speed, but also security. In particular, Bruno found a rather
telling flaw in the CVS model of pushing all local files to the server,
and letting the server do all the work:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bob Friesenhahn on 9/19/2007 7:12 PM:
Hi Bob,
>>
>> The initial git import is complete. Feel free to check it out:
>>
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git
>
> What is the purpose of converting to git?
Primarily speed,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Eric Blake wrote:
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
I'm hoping to convert the Autoconf repository to git (while still providing a
CVS read-only mirror)
The initial git import is complete. Feel free to check it out:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git
What
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
>
> I'm hoping to convert the Autoconf repository to git (while still providing a
> CVS read-only mirror)
The initial git import is complete. Feel free to check it out:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git
There are still some things to work out, su
> Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> cks 1994-09-22
Chris Siebenmann, I expect.
>> gnu 1997-07-04
I think this was an administrative account, not necessarily associated
with any single person.
>> sac 1993-04-30
>> wood1993-04-09
Sorry, I don't know these.
___
On Sep 14, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
I'm hoping to convert the Autoconf repository to git (while still
providing a
CVS read-only mirror);
** O M G **
This is by far the best news I've heard since I read this list.
Is this some sort of a global move? I've seen that Emacs also has
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, does anyone know the name of the person behind the following
> user-ids, each of which has made commits to autoconf CVS but which left no
> ChangeLog entry and no name in the CVS log for their actions? The various
> commits were all yea
27 matches
Mail list logo
