[admin] Re: [slime-devel] Re: Mercurial
Speaking with my common-lisp.net admin hat on, I'm happy to install either git, hg or both. In fact, they'd probably be good to have in any case. With my usual hat on (the one with funny ears), I'm wondering "why not darcs?". Did darcs lose out in the DVCS "wars" because they haven't managed to fix the "exponential time" bug? thanks, On Mar 4, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Helmut Eller wrote:
* Nikodemus Siivola [2008-03-04 16:07+0100] writes:
On 3/4/08, Helmut Eller <heller@common-lisp.net> wrote:
What do people think of switching from CVS to Mercurial[*] ?
I have no experience with it, but no objections either. The only question I have is the status of Mercurial support on common- lisp.net.
It's currently not installed. But I hope the cl.netters don't mind to install it. I did a local install there and also installed the cgi script (well, server-side include) under http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/hgweb.shtml. I think it doesn't need any other upgrades.
I think hg has some hooks to send emails after a commit, so we would send that to the slime-cvs mailing list. I haven't tried it, though. The script for the daily changelog summary would probably need some adjustments.
It would be nice to have a CVS mirror of the Mercurial repository (so that non-committers wouldn't notice the switch) but I couldn't find an simple solution to that.
Helmut.
_______________________________________________ slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
-- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM
Gary King <gwking@metabang.com> wrote:
With my usual hat on (the one with funny ears), I'm wondering "why not darcs?". Did darcs lose out in the DVCS "wars" because they haven't managed to fix the "exponential time" bug?
Nice hat :-) I personally continue using Darcs for my personal stuff, because I like it, especially, the interactive behavior. However, no, I don't think it scales very well yet. -- 5th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP 2008, July 7: http://elw.bknr.net/2008/ Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (0)1 53 14 59 22 didier@xemacs.org
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:18:17AM -0500, Gary King wrote:
With my usual hat on (the one with funny ears), I'm wondering "why not darcs?". Did darcs lose out in the DVCS "wars" because they haven't managed to fix the "exponential time" bug?
As far as I know it can explode into exponential time, with generally unpleasant actions required to fix it, because of doing actions (repeated merges) that are common and something that you really want to do in a distributed version control system. That's a pretty critical problem, IMHO. Maybe most projects don't get there, but I managed to wedge Darcs almost immediately when trying to use it on SBCL. I also don't like the fact that Darcs doesn't really model history, which I consider to be a very important part of a SCM. In almost all other systems, there a unique identifier, usually 40 characters or less, that can uniquely identify each and every revision, globally. In darcs, you either have to have a long patchset file, or you have to tag (how CVS!) to identify a version. I like the patch algebra idea, but in practical terms I feel I can achieve almost all the same benefits with Git's rebasing tools. (And in fact sometimes more benefit; I often want to remove or add a patch in a way that isn't "clean" in Darcs' view of the world, so I would have to go to extra effort to do it in Darcs as well.) -bcd
bdowning@lavos.net (Brian Downing) writes:
In almost all other systems, there a unique identifier, usually 40 characters or less, that can uniquely identify each and every revision, globally. In darcs, you either have to have a long patchset file, or you have to tag (how CVS!) to identify a version.
Do you mean a unique identifier for each patch? In darcs you can use the hash for a patch darcs annotate --summary --match \ 'hash 20040403105958-53a90-c719567e92c3b0ab9eddd5290b705712b8b918ef' Use the --xml-output option to find the hash. It 61 characters though. Cheers, Chris Dean
On 3/4/08, Chris Dean <ctdean@sokitomi.com> wrote:
Do you mean a unique identifier for each patch? In darcs you can use the hash for a patch
darcs annotate --summary --match \ 'hash 20040403105958-53a90-c719567e92c3b0ab9eddd5290b705712b8b918ef'
Use the --xml-output option to find the hash. It 61 characters though.
I don't know what Brian meant, but one of the things I miss in Darcs are global tree/commit identifiers, and identifying commits with the trees they produce. Cheers, -- Nikodemus
participants (5)
-
bdowning＠lavos.net -
Chris Dean -
Didier Verna -
Gary King -
Nikodemus Siivola