Hi Lauren, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > To be honest, learning yet another version control system is one of the > reasons why I'm reluctant to switch over to Mercurial. I would have preferred > using a git repository instead.
In fact I would prefer git as well, but if hosting is mercurial only then... :) > However, I expect most people to be interested in the latest version only. In > that case they can easily download a tarball. I might be wrong, but I imagine > that most people who will download the uvcvideo sources directly from the > repository will, now that the driver has been included in the kernel, just > want to try the latest version to get a patch specific to their issue. Hmm, that's probably the case. > How many developers checkout a non-head SVN revision or use SVN log or diff > commands on the Linux UVC SVN repository ? I'd really like to have statistics > on such usage. I wasn't really referring to the log or even diff commands per se. Rather keeping oneself up to date with the latest repository without redownloading it. > Very good point. http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MajorFeatures > states that Mercurial uses "Bandwidth and CPU efficient HTTP and SSH sync > protocols" so I guess this won't be an issue. Yeah, according to that it seems to be a non-issue. > Hence my question above about usage of SVN log and diff commands (commit is > not an issue as I'm currently the only committer). Do you feel that tarballs > are unpractical for the majority of users who just want to try the latest > version ? I'm not committing, but sometimes syncing and diffing to check if there's a workaround for the old camera issue my camera had. :p > You only need a single tarball, the one containing the tree you want to > checkout (in our case this would be the linux-uvc tree). People complained in > the past about the lack of tarball and the required use of SVN so I thought > everybody would be happy with tarballs, but it seems this is not the case :-) But I understood you also need to get the v4l/dvb core sources and maybe some other modules to compile it, would they be in the same tarball or how are they got? Don't take my opinion as the general opinion though, I'm just personally happier with svn compared to tarballs but most people probably aren't. :) > I'd stick to SVN too if it wasn't for the #ifdef's :-/ I guess that's good enough reason, as I said if that's the thing to avoid ugly code then should just go for it. > download a tarball. This in itself lowers the barrier. They will also have to > compile and install the v4l core modules in addition to the uvcvideo module. > That could raise the barrier, but don't forget that there should be more > community support as compiling and installing a linuxtv.org tree is an > operation performed by more users than compiling and installing the uvcvideo > driver. In a quick chat on the #v4l IRC channel I got told v4l developers do It's just that the first time I checked out and compiled uvcvideo I was slightly amazed at how easy and painless everything went. That sounds like it will go from amazing to a slight pain in the ass in the future, but that should be acceptable. I'm mainly replying because you asked for comments, in the end it's your call since you do the commits. :) Regards, Juho _______________________________________________ Linux-uvc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/linux-uvc-devel
