[Pharo-project] SVN vs Git for the cogvm
Hi eliot, I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git? Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same... best regards, camillo
Hi: On 02 May 2011, at 17:22, Camillo Bruni wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git? Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. +1, a general sync between the Cog git repos and the main SVN trunk would also be very helpful.
I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
Easy git is very nice for ex-svn users like me: http://people.gnome.org/~newren/eg/git-for-svn-users.html And is the best Git GUI I came across so far: http://www.git-tower.com/ Best regards Stefan PS: Camillo, what happened to the MCGit, it just works? -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525
On 2011-05-02, at 17:41, Stefan Marr wrote:
PS: Camillo, what happened to the MCGit, it just works?
well, sort of. I am still in the writing phase :D. I seem to trigger some library bug on deleting unused items form the repository. So you'll end up with tons of dangling trees and blobs, which is not that nice :D. Though if that would work I presume that the rest is fairly easy to implement. camillo
Hi Camillo, On May 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git?
History.
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically. I don't want to change all my process just yet.
best regards, camillo
On 2011-05-02, at 17:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Hi Camillo,
On May 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git? History.
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn. So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO. -(~_~)- camillo
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr>wrote:
On 2011-05-02, at 17:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Hi Camillo,
On May 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git? History.
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Please, DON'T do that to the blessed. The most important thing from gitorious is how to sync platforms code and VMMaker. Every commit in the blessed comes with an associated (if required) new version in ConfigurationOfCog, and hence, the update of the file blesses/codegen-scripts/LoadVMMaker.st That is the ONLY way to have in sync both parts and to be able to "always" build a VM. So...ok, we can have a cron automatically pick up the branch from SVN and push it in gitorious, but please, not to blessed.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn.
So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO.
-(~_~)- camillo
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
+1 the difference of implications of the tool in terms of social and sharing is much more important than the tools. Eliot even me I can understand and use git git pull git commit -am git push stef
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn.
So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO.
-(~_~)- camillo
On 3 May 2011 00:46, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
+1
the difference of implications of the tool in terms of social and sharing is much more important than the tools.
Eliot even me I can understand and use git
Stef, you sound like you re some kind of standard to measure of minimal capability to understand things :) IF so, then a complexity measure can be expressed as: C = K / stefs then if something has complexity C <= 1, it is guaranteed the anyone could understand it (including Stef). And if C > 1 then depending of how much Stefs score you have, you will be able to understand it or not, and of course for anything with C > 1 , Stef won't be able to get it without external help :). Now the problem is how to measure how much stefs score each person has :)
    git pull     git commit -am     git push
stef
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn.
So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO.
-(~_~)- camillo
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
"Igor" == Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> writes:
Igor> Stef, you sound like you re some kind of standard to measure of Igor> minimal capability to understand things :) The more I understand git, the more I grow to hate SVN. And I hate SVN quite a lot now. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>wrote:
"Igor" == Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> writes:
Igor> Stef, you sound like you re some kind of standard to measure of Igor> minimal capability to understand things :)
The more I understand git, the more I grow to hate SVN.
And I hate SVN quite a lot now. :)
There's a lot to hate but... it could be CVS. That is what I always like to remind myself of.
Am 03.05.2011 um 08:07 schrieb Sean Allen:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
"Igor" == Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> writes:
Igor> Stef, you sound like you re some kind of standard to measure of Igor> minimal capability to understand things :)
The more I understand git, the more I grow to hate SVN.
And I hate SVN quite a lot now. :)
There's a lot to hate but... it could be CVS.
Which I liked much better than SCCS.
That is what I always like to remind myself of.
Exactly. There are features _and_ important features. The last ones you need really the former need grows just in your head :) Norbert
"Norbert" == Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> writes:
Norbert> Am 03.05.2011 um 08:07 schrieb Sean Allen:
The more I understand git, the more I grow to hate SVN.
And I hate SVN quite a lot now. :)
There's a lot to hate but... it could be CVS.
Norbert> Which I liked much better than SCCS.
And only slightly better than "cp foo.c foo.c.04june2008" :) Or my favorite: cp foo.c foo.c-GOOD How many of you just cringed there? :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
"Norbert" == Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> writes:
Norbert> Am 03.05.2011 um 08:07 schrieb Sean Allen:
The more I understand git, the more I grow to hate SVN.
And I hate SVN quite a lot now. :)
There's a lot to hate but... it could be CVS.
Norbert> Which I liked much better than SCCS.
And only slightly better than "cp foo.c foo.c.04june2008" :)
Or my favorite:
 cp foo.c foo.c-GOOD
How many of you just cringed there? :)
One step down from RCS!
LOL But I can tell that I hated when sbe changed under my feets from svn to git. And I hate learning stupid thing like 0 is true or false btw. stef
On 3 May 2011 00:46, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
+1
the difference of implications of the tool in terms of social and sharing is much more important than the tools.
Eliot even me I can understand and use git
Stef, you sound like you re some kind of standard to measure of minimal capability to understand things :)
IF so, then a complexity measure can be expressed as:
C = K / stefs
then if something has complexity C <= 1, it is guaranteed the anyone could understand it (including Stef).
And if C > 1 then depending of how much Stefs score you have, you will be able to understand it or not, and of course for anything with C > 1 , Stef won't be able to get it without external help :).
Now the problem is how to measure how much stefs score each person has :)
git pull git commit -am git push
stef
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn.
So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO.
-(~_~)- camillo
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On 3 May 2011 16:36, Toon Verwaest <toon.verwaest@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2011 07:57 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
LOL
But I can tell that I hated when sbe changed under my feets from svn to git.
Why the hate? See it as an opportunity to grow ;)
Personally, i really like a git status command.. It is much more convenient than analogous to svn or cvs. I am also like that i can do crazy things with branches/sources , and be sure that nothing is lost and i can always revert things back to normal if i break something. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Instead of discussing where to commit I would discuss how to merge and define the process with VMMaker. I mean, how WE (the community) and Eliot, manage the development of Cog (the VMMaker part). Take as an example today. There is "our branch" which is in VMMaker-oscog-XXX.NUMBER. For example, the last one is VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.66. Eliot commits are in (since now) VMMaker.oscog-eem.56. Who merges? Eliot? us? Would Eliot took the result of the merge as his next base version? Because suppose I merge it, and I get VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.67 which is the merge with VMMaker.oscog-eem.56. Will Eliot take that version and follow his code from that one? or he will release VMMaker.oscog-eem.5N tomorrow, and we will need to merge with VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.6N? if so, the merge will always be more complicated and the differences will be more and more... Cheers Mariano On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2011 16:36, Toon Verwaest <toon.verwaest@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2011 07:57 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
LOL
But I can tell that I hated when sbe changed under my feets from svn to git.
Why the hate? See it as an opportunity to grow ;)
Personally, i really like a git status command..
It is much more convenient than analogous to svn or cvs. I am also like that i can do crazy things with branches/sources , and be sure that nothing is lost and i can always revert things back to normal if i break something.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
On 3 May 2011 16:57, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Instead of discussing where to commit I would discuss how to merge and define the process with VMMaker. I mean, how WE (the community) and Eliot, manage the development of Cog (the VMMaker part).
Take as an example today. There is "our branch" which is in VMMaker-oscog-XXX.NUMBER. For example, the last one is VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.66. Eliot commits are in (since now) VMMaker.oscog-eem.56. Who merges? Eliot? us? Would Eliot took the result of the merge as his next base version? Because suppose I merge it, and I get VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.67 which is the merge with VMMaker.oscog-eem.56. Will Eliot take that version and follow his code from that one? or he will release VMMaker.oscog-eem.5N tomorrow, and we will need to merge with VMMaker-oscog-MarianoMartinezPeck.6N? if so, the merge will always be more complicated and the differences will be more and more...
As to me the rule is simple: - before making new release (or snapshot) an author should merge with latest available version. it means, whoever are responsible for update, he should merge previous work (or just base his work on latest available version). This btw, a typical rule for group development. I've been followed it since using CVS, then SVN in many other project i were involved. Its simple and straightforward. Why we should invent something else? Okay. So, Mariano, it is your call. Please do the merge eem.56 + MarianoMartinezPeck.66 and then create new ConfigurationOfCog, so next time we will build new VMs based on this version.
Cheers
Mariano
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On 2011-05-02, at 17:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Hi Camillo,
On May 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git? History.
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. sure, but all of us changed as well, which is at least 10 to 1 ;).
Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically.
Well merging does not work fully automated, so there is some human interaction involved. And SVN is not really about collaboration, which is not so nice.
I don't want to change all my process just yet.
so when do you intend to change your process yet? You should get the basics in 5mins, most of the rest can be solved with compatibility configurations (which I will provide ;) free of charge), and the rest just works more stable than svn. So would be a cool step towards a more community based VM IMO. -(~_~)- camillo
On 2 May 2011 17:59, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Camillo,
On May 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillo.bruni@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi eliot,
I wanted to know if there is a particular reason that you use svn over git?
History.
Btw, about history. I found gitk is quite nice GUI tool for git. It showing all branches with all their commit history and it is quite fascinating to watch how project evolves over time and different branches are merging together and then again go side by side and then again merge etc etc :)
Since it is quite a hassle each time to merge the svn history to the git repos, which I think is a bit of useless repetitive work which could be avoided. I think it would be nice if you could switch to git as well, actually there is not much difference to svn, and with some nice macros you can make behave almost the same...
It's a hastle for me to change. Â Surely you can set-up some script that pings the Cog branch every ten minutes and does the replication to got automatically. Â I don't want to change all my process just yet.
best regards, camillo
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
participants (10)
-
Camillo Bruni -
Eliot Miranda -
Igor Stasenko -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Norbert Hartl -
Sean Allen -
Stefan Marr -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Toon Verwaest