the only kind of cons I see in switching to GIT.
>
>>lost the comfort of manipulate/move/... all the source package with a
>>simple "commit/mv/checkout/...".
>
> mr was already brought to the attention
I think providing some script using mr for those who
On 03/06/2011 10:13 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:56:59AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Python based
>>> dVCS?
>>>
>> Because the language of
On 03/07/2011 11:19 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
> Being a maintainer of Python packages often means you know Python
> which enables you to make mercurial work the way want: write a plugin,
> write a script that looks for information in the repo, etc.
>
> from mercurial import hg, ui
> repo = hg
Ok, flogging the dead horse once more:
On Wed, 09.03.2011 at 11:11:35 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> >in my experience, in contrast to bzr (but that was 1-2 years ago, since
> >then those projects switched to GIT), it was also "robustness"
On Mar 09, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >Because none is as advanced as git is.
>> Are there specific git features that you think the team would want to use,
>> that are missing from the other dvcs?
>
>may be "familiarity"?
Okay, but th
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >Because none is as advanced as git is.
> Are there specific git features that you think the team would want to use,
> that are missing from the other dvcs?
may be "familiarity"?
in my experience, in contrast to bzr (but that was 1-2 years ago, since
th
On Mar 07, 2011, at 08:18 AM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>On 03/06/2011 07:33 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>
>>> Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
>>> preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
>>> qui
Hi Steve,
On Sun, 06.03.2011 at 14:18:40 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> AIUI Scott is talking here about the ease of transitioning an svn user to
> bzr because of the similarity of the command model, not about using either
> git or bzr to access the current svn repo.
I was talking about the rob
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 05:30:15PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > Wouldn't managing python packages with mercurial make sense?
>
> it would as much as with any other DVCS, such as GIT. I am yet to hear
> any objective advantage for using Python-based DVCS because they are
> written in Pytho
lt to do global changes to the "global" repository.
>
> There is currently a discussion in debian-devel about how to switch from
> SVN to git and they seem to use "mr".
For what is worth, I am in favor of switching to git, as I am already using
git-svn locally, with r
Le 06/03/2011 23:30, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>> Mercurial works well with multiple repositories (subrepo extension)
> ah thanks -- at times I need to look at HG repos, and I could not figure
> out how to get multiple 'remotes'
I don’t think git re
On 03/06/2011 12:12 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git. I don't
> remember everything but a major blocker was that it is not possible to
> checkout a subtree with git and managing a lot of git repositories will
> make it difficult
On 03/06/2011 07:33 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>> Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
>> preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
>> quite weak reason.
>
> Let me turn that around: why would yo
On Monday 07,March,2011 10:22 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>> I think it's a waste of space to keep the
>> tarballs separate from the tree.
>
> which you will do anyways at least for a moment (noone escaped
> from the fact of needing .orig.tar.gz yet), but might not be needed for
> the long run.
> I think it's a waste of space to keep the
> tarballs separate from the tree.
which you will do anyways at least for a moment (noone escaped
from the fact of needing .orig.tar.gz yet), but might not be needed for
the long run.
So, if you carry about 100s of packages at once, carrying complete
d
Thank you Barry,
yes -- I see the use-case/purpose for such a feature now, just
hadn't chance to use it myself. But I would not consider it as an
argument for bad practices in GIT ecosystems -- different projects,
communities, contribution gateways -- different rules. Great to see GIT
providing
On Monday 07,March,2011 10:13 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> ah -- I never tried to dive that deep as in committing git merges back
> into SVN. Whenever I am interacting with SVN I am trying to be gentle
> with the repository -- just linear changes ;)
My point was that I was using the merge-with
ah -- I never tried to dive that deep as in committing git merges back
into SVN. Whenever I am interacting with SVN I am trying to be gentle
with the repository -- just linear changes ;)
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> >> stuff there because the git-buildpackage merge-with-upstream w
On Mar 06, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>I used to choose tools based on the language they are implemented in, I
>justified it with the old "it needs to be in a language I know/like in
>case I need to modify it or fix bugs in it" excuse. Since then I learned
>my lesson and, unless I'm s
On Mar 07, 2011, at 08:28 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>For clarity, the thing I'm referring to is the ability to commit
>directly to a stacked branch - which I think is equivalent to the
>partial limitation you're referencing. I've just checked in #bzr, and
>that is in 2.3.0, which has been out for
On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:53 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
>On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> > git diff ... | patch; git commit -m 'Merged blah bleh into blue'
>> hint: git merge --squash
>
>ah, evil evil evil git developers for allowing such a thing! I never
>used it ;-)
I've heard
On Mar 07, 2011, at 01:56 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Python based dVCS?
>>
>Because the language of a tool shouldn't usually matter at all?
Unless of course you want to
On Monday 07,March,2011 07:59 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> stuff there because the git-buildpackage merge-with-upstream workflow doesn't
>> work very well with git-svn.
>
> any specific concerns? works for me ok with cython
Merging history gets
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> stuff there because the git-buildpackage merge-with-upstream workflow doesn't
> work very well with git-svn.
any specific concerns? works for me ok with cython
--
=--=
Keep in touch
On Monday 07,March,2011 06:44 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [...]
> (it's not that anyone else will do the work anyway - few tried to
> convince us to switch to $VCS and I didn't hear from them after asking
> to start preparing it)
If we switch to git, I'd volunteer to help out with the transitions
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > git diff ... | patch; git commit -m 'Merged blah bleh into blue'
> hint: git merge --squash
ah, evil evil evil git developers for allowing such a thing! I never
used it ;-)
> Sandro: so... what do WE choose? :-)
> mr + git-buildpackage + overlay?
moreover, while talking about tags, in GIT some symbols we use for
debian versioning (e.g. ~ and :) are not allowed in tags, so they get
replaced (with '%' and '.' for above with git-buildpackage). That is
the only kind of cons I see in switching to GIT.
>lost the com
[Yaroslav Halchenko, 2011-03-06]
> git diff ... | patch; git commit -m 'Merged blah bleh into blue'
hint: git merge --squash
PS `svn log | egrep "^r[0-9]+ " | cut -f2 -d'|' | sed
's/pox-guest/piotr/;s/kitterma-guest/kitterman/;s/-guest//' | sort | uniq -c |
sort -n -r`
results are here: http://
Hi @All, please accept one consideration,
I've observed that you are using SVN repositories on multi-project
way. In this case,
if you'd want migrate to Git or BZR (I'll use the last one as inline
examples), you must consider the different behavior of the source tag
managing.
#. In SVN, tags are
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> frankly. Perhaps you're comparing bzr merging with the seemingly common git
> practice of discarding revision history as a substitute for doing an actual
> DVCS merge?
could you enlighten me how GIT merges manage to discard revision
history? that is s
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 11:15:39PM +0100, Jan Dittberner wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > >Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
> > >preferible to git except being Python-based
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
> > > There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git.
> CPython just switched to mercurial.
And Cython just switched from mercurial to GIT, having previousely
switched got HG from SVN IIRC... may be that is a logical generic
roadwork? ;)
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:55:31PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Sun, 06.03.2011 at 16:01:04 -0500, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
> > With bzr the transition from svn is a little easier than that. Almost any
> > svn
> > command you would use, the same command works with bzr, e.g. svn co and bzr
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> please *do* use the pristine-tar options.
just 0.1cents to complement:
although I like pristine-tar in general, if in transition decision would
be to adopt svn-buildpackage mergeWithUpstream ('overlay' in
git-buildpackage) to lightweight the repositor
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
> >Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
> >preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
> >quite weak reason.
>
> Let me turn that ar
Hi,
On Sun, 06.03.2011 at 13:33:45 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
> >preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
> >quite weak reason.
>
> Let me turn that ar
Hi,
On Sun, 06.03.2011 at 16:01:04 -0500, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> With bzr the transition from svn is a little easier than that. Almost any
> svn
> command you would use, the same command works with bzr, e.g. svn co and bzr
> co.
I can confirm that bzr-svn works much more smoothly than gi
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:56:59AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Python based
> > dVCS?
> >
> Because the language of a tool shouldn't usually matter at all?
> Because
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 03:02:25 pm Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > One thing that is a clear advantage for bzr is that it supports both a
> > traditional centralized workflow and modern DVCS workflow so that not
> > everyone needs to switch to a foreig
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Python based dVCS?
>
Because the language of a tool shouldn't usually matter at all?
Because git-buildpackage is widely used while mercurial-buildpackage is
not?
--
WBR, wRA
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:48:32PM +, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:12, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git.
CPython just switched to mercurial.
Mercurial works well with multiple repositories (subrepo extension)
and handl
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> One thing that is a clear advantage for bzr is that it supports both a
> traditional centralized workflow and modern DVCS workflow so that not
> everyone
> needs to switch to a foreign method of work immediately after the transition.
>
AFAIK any
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Scott Kitterman
>>wrote:
>>...
>>> reasonably comfortable for both. It's not as fast a git and it
>>suffers from
>>> not being able to do partial checkouts (like git), so it's very
Robert Collins wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>...
>> reasonably comfortable for both. It's not as fast a git and it
>suffers from
>> not being able to do partial checkouts (like git), so it's very much
>a middle
>> ground in both advanatages and disadvantages b
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> reasonably comfortable for both. It's not as fast a git and it suffers from
> not being able to do partial checkouts (like git), so it's very much a middle
> ground in both advanatages and disadvantages between svn and git.
I believe t
Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>>Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
>>preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
>>quite weak reason.
>
> Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Pyth
On Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:43:23 pm Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:33, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > Is this a Debian-wide decision, or can each subteam go its own way?
>
> each team can decide on its own, but git is very wide accepted within
> Debian, which is to be considered when c
On Mar 06, 2011, at 05:43 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Do the 2 VCDs you mentioned have clear advantage that make then
>preferible to git except being Python-based? If so, I think it's a
>quite weak reason.
Let me turn that around: why would you *not* want to use a Python based dVCS?
One reason coul
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 17:33, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Is this a Debian-wide decision, or can each subteam go its own way?
each team can decide on its own, but git is very wide accepted within
Debian, which is to be considered when choosing a new VCS to use
(because it presents a lower barrier to at
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> if the latter, then I would much prefer to see debian-python choose a
> Python-based dVCS.
because ...
^^^ -- please replace with advantages of having dVCS match
underlying language of the packaged work
--
=-
On Mar 06, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git. I don't
>remember everything but a major blocker was that it is not possible to
>checkout a subtree with git and managing a lot of git repositories will
>make it difficult to do
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 14:07, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Do you think this is an acceptable solution? Commit can be done on
> several repositories with one command. This is not really a single
> commit, but maybe close enough. Maybe this was already discussed.
I don't know.
--
Sandro T
OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du dimanche 06 mars 2011, vers
14:48, Sandro Tosi disait :
>> There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git. I don't
>> remember everything but a major blocker was that it is not possible to
>> checkout a subtree with git and managing
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:12, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git. I don't
> remember everything but a major blocker was that it is not possible to
> checkout a subtree with git and managing a lot of git repositories will
> make it dif
Hi!
There was some discussions about switching from SVN to git. I don't
remember everything but a major blocker was that it is not possible to
checkout a subtree with git and managing a lot of git repositories will
make it difficult to do global changes to the "global" repository.
There i
* Ondrej Certik [2008-12-21 00:08:18 +0100]:
> As to mercurial Tristan, I don't know if you actually ever used
> hg-buildpackage, but it is written in Haskell (!) and see my blog post
> here:
I've used it; being written in Haskell isn't something I consider a
problem. It works just fine for
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Agree. We talked with Sandro on IRC, the problem is in a bad internet
> connection --- it takes ~40min to download 10MB -- then of course
> every MB matters. For me it takes just couple seconds, so it doesn't
> really matter if I am downloading tarball+debian dir separately,
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 15:54, Ondrej Certik wrote:
...
Last reply on this thread, just to recap what Ondrej and me discussed
on irc this evening.
I didn't realize I ain't made clear what's my network situation: I'm
still at 56k, so many of the think you broadband users consider
normal, trivial,
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Piotr Ożarowski, 2008-12-23 13:37]
>> unfortunately I use Git only outside Debian, so I don't know about
>> issues git-buildpackage might have. I know it doesn't have
>> mergeWithUpstream but it's written in Python, so we can implement th
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2008-12-23 13:37]
> unfortunately I use Git only outside Debian, so I don't know about
> issues git-buildpackage might have. I know it doesn't have
> mergeWithUpstream but it's written in Python, so we can implement this.
> The problem is (FWIK) that it's better to use Git with up
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 00:48, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> thanks for the points, I reacted to some.
>
> so please accept my reply :)
Absolutely. :)
> have you ever tried git-svn to work over your packages actually in the team?
Yes, git-svn ro
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:26:29PM +0100, Carlos wrote:
> Well, maybe we should distinguish between newcomers to the team and
> newcomers to VCS. A newcomer to the team could master one VCS, two or
> none of them, so it's impossible to know his (or her) preferences in
> advance. For a newcomer to
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 00:48, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> thanks for the points, I reacted to some.
so please accept my reply :)
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git?
>>
>> I'm none of them, but I'll speak anyway :) Bux
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Precisely. TTBOMK no other VCS is as smooth to operate as subversion
> *for Debian packages*. Only svn-buildpackage can handle correctly the
> versioning of the debian/ directory alone.
bzr bd works fine in this mode; did you try it out?
--
Loïc M
Josselin Mouette writes:
> TTBOMK no other VCS is as smooth to operate as subversion *for
> Debian packages*. Only svn-buildpackage can handle correctly the
> versioning of the debian/ directory alone.
What mis-handlings of a separate ‘debian/’ directory do you know of in
the other ‘$VCS-buildpa
Le mercredi 24 décembre 2008 à 00:48 +0100, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
> Imho if we are going to only version the debian dir, then I also don't
> see such a strong argument for git (or other distributed vcs). Since
> it will still need to fiddle with upstream tarball and also with
> debian/patches + q
Hi Sandro,
thanks for the points, I reacted to some.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git?
>
> I'm none of them, but I'll speak anyway :) Buxy almost did my point,
> I'd like to express me a bit.
>
> To do a change into
On Tue, 2008-23-12 at 16:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Everyone on the team has a workflow for SVN. Not true for the others.
> We have a working system and we ought not move off of it until we have
> a approach that is easily accessible and well documented.
Besides. Git will talk to a svn r
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> I frankly don't see how svn can maximize participation of newcomers. Svn
> users are tipically long-time "versioners" who probably tried at least
Well, maybe we should distinguish between newcomers to the team and
newcomers to VCS. A new
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:01:06 +0100 Pietro Battiston wrote:
>Il giorno mar, 23/12/2008 alle 11.41 -0500, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> >> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to
Il giorno mar, 23/12/2008 alle 11.41 -0500, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> >> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? So that I
> >> can just commit such patches in a branch and
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'll argue we want something different. We want VCS that will
> maximize participation. That means both keeping top contributors
> happpy and keeping it accessible to newcomers.
>
> I don't think hg, bzr, or git obviously qualify as accesible. My
>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:14:25PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I only trust my own comparsion without any date and version numbers.
> > And honestly I don't care about a checkin of the usual 2-5 files
> > taking half a second longer. What annoys me most with git is the
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:08:03 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? So that I
>> can just commit such patches in a branch and also so that we don't
>> have to mess with the orig.tar.gz, svn-uscan and other
> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git?
I'm none of them, but I'll speak anyway :) Buxy almost did my point,
I'd like to express me a bit.
To do a change into something different we need a reason: what's the
reason for moving from svn to git? is it because it's cool? (I hope
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> I am surprised I am actually the 6th most active. Pretty cool. :)
I am surprised to still be in the top 10 (hertzog)… it means the team is
not so active as one would expect. :-)
Anyway, I'm fine with git as well but I'm not convinced it's that
important
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
My personal preference ordering would probably be:
hg, bzr, svn, git
git, FD, *
+1 :)
http://whygitisbetterthanx.com
I don't know git, but I want to learn about it.. so It can be a nice
oportunity to do
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Executive suggestion: we wont be able to use the same VCS for all
> packages; use whatever the top contributors prefer, not what all
> contributors to all packages prefer.
I thought this was clear from the above rationale, but the stats I
attached ar
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? So that I
> can just commit such patches in a branch and also so that we don't
> have to mess with the orig.tar.gz, svn-uscan and other things -- i.e.
> everything will be in one git repo, so us
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> I only trust my own comparsion without any date and version numbers.
>> And honestly I don't care about a checkin of the usual 2-5 files
>> taking half a second longer. What annoys me most with git is the
>> steep le
Matthias Klose wrote:
> I only trust my own comparsion without any date and version numbers.
> And honestly I don't care about a checkin of the usual 2-5 files
> taking half a second longer. What annoys me most with git is the
> steep learning curve and the non-intuitive UI, therefore I do prefer
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
> >> My personal preference ordering would probably be:
> >>
> >> hg, bzr, svn, git
> >
> > git, FD, *
>
> +1 :)
>
>
> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com
I only trust my own comparsion without any date and vers
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Ondrej Certik, 2008-12-23 11:19]
>> emi...@saturno:~/deb/python-modules$ svn log | egrep "^r[0-9]+ " | cut
>> -f2 -d'|' | sed 's/-guest//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -r
>> 865 piotr
>> 609 morph
>> 598 kov
>> 532 bzed
>
I'd prefer:
hg, git, bzr, svn, *
but looks like the trend goes to git, which is a good option IMHO.
Merry Christmas,
Eike
pgpHKNQOnhCVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[Ondrej Certik, 2008-12-23 11:19]
> emi...@saturno:~/deb/python-modules$ svn log | egrep "^r[0-9]+ " | cut
> -f2 -d'|' | sed 's/-guest//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -r
> 865 piotr
> 609 morph
> 598 kov
> 532 bzed
> 388 pox
865+388=1253
looks like my vote is most meaningfu
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
>>> My personal preference ordering would probably be:
>>>
>>> hg, bzr, svn, git
>>
>> git, FD, *
>
> +1 :)
+1 too.
Btw, Emilio did a list of the most active DPMT users, here i
> Btw, Emilio did a list of the most active DPMT users, here it is. Some
> people like pox and piotr are actually the same.
And the same list for PAPT:
emi...@saturno:~/deb/python-apps$ svn log | egrep "^r[0-9]+ " | cut
-f2 -d'|' | sed 's/-guest//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -r
401 nijel
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
>> My personal preference ordering would probably be:
>>
>> hg, bzr, svn, git
>
> git, FD, *
+1 :)
http://whygitisbetterthanx.com
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:08:18AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> as it is really ugly to use
> > Ugly how?
> Well, it's just slow once you get used to git and how fast it is,
> it really sucks to wait for basic operations like "bz
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 09:04:33AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes:
>
> > Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
> > > My personal preference ordering would probably be:
> > >
> > > hg, bzr, svn, git
git, bzr, svn
I read some git stuff today and think it's superior to the other
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
> > My personal preference ordering would probably be:
> >
> > hg, bzr, svn, git
>
> git, FD, *
bzr, git, hg, FD, svn
--
\ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his |
`\ salary depends upon his not
Tristan Seligmann (20/12/2008):
> My personal preference ordering would probably be:
>
> hg, bzr, svn, git
git, FD, *
devotee to the rescue.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a
>>> much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well
>>> bzr...
>
>> unfortunatelt I don't kn
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>> > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a
>> > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well
>> >
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> (that's just my subjective opinion, please don't start a flame war now)
>
> It's a rather strongly worded opinion; if you want to avoid flame wars, you
> might find it helpful to bring specific criticisms to the table instead of
> just declaring a solution "ugly". :
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Monty Taylor wrote:
> > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a
> > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well
> > bzr...
> unfortunatelt I don't know why they use bzr
Because
inion, please don't start a flame war now)
Switching to git would be a good thing, but only if most people of the team
are ok with the switch.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
--
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a
> > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well
> > bzr...
> >
> > (note: I use bzr for all of my other projects, so I have a vested interest)
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a
>> much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well
>> bzr...
>>
>> (note: I use bzr for all of my other projects, so I have a
Hi Piotr!
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Ondrej Certik, 2008-12-08]
>> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git?
>
> I was planing it for a long time, but never found time to actually do it.
>
> If you volunteer to do this, please send a message to PA
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
