RE: Switching from CVS to GIT
On 18 October 2007 07:13, Jim Meyering wrote: > Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently, ... >> It seems like GIT is where the mindshare is these days, plus a number of >> the other autotools projects have already migrated (or are in the middle >> of migrating) to GIT, so that's what I'd go with. > ... > Congratulations! :-) > >> I don't really know what the current state-of-the-art is WRT GIT on >> non-POSIX systems, so... please give me your opinions on this change. > > I heard it was usable months ago, but less efficient than > on Unix-based systems. http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#YSHFRTT! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently, ... > It seems like GIT is where the mindshare is these days, plus a number of > the other autotools projects have already migrated (or are in the middle > of migrating) to GIT, so that's what I'd go with. ... Congratulations! :-) > I don't really know what the current state-of-the-art is WRT GIT on > non-POSIX systems, so... please give me your opinions on this change. I heard it was usable months ago, but less efficient than on Unix-based systems. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
RE: Switching from CVS to GIT (make under Windows)
> -Original Message- > From: make-w32-bounces On Behalf Of Paul Smith > Sent: maandag 15 oktober 2007 23:11 > To: Howard Chu > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Switching from CVS to GIT > > On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 13:36 -0700, Howard Chu wrote: > > IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense > > in this discussion. "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool. > > Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment > already anyway. > > That is definitely not true. The Windows ports of make are > quite useful > in native Windows environments, with no hint of POSIX (command line). > They can use the Windows shell instead of the UNIX shell, etc. True. > Certainly you're not going to be able to run any POSIX-based > makefile on > a Windows system without a full suite of common tools, but > that doesn't mean it makes no sense in other situations. See below. > Eli can speak more directly to this, though: I've never actually used > make in these situations. Cheers! We're using GNU make on Windows XP (with GNU make built with the MS compiler) using cmd.exe as the shell, calling a Windows based compiler/assembler/linker and other tools during the build. Although you -can- use GNU make under Windows perfectly fine without using MSYS/Cygwin etc. we do use a couple of other GNU/POSIX tools, from the (pretty much dead?) unx-utils project in our case. Tools like unx-echo.exe, unx-grep.exe, unx-grep.exe, unx-awk.exe, unx-sed.exe, etc are simply way too useful. Or rather, the Windows commandline is simply too limited. For example to implement automatic dependency generation using the preprocessor output. Our compiler suite is only available on the Windows platform but I did want to implement an automatable and fully controlled build environment (compared to building from inside an grapical IDE with lots of checkboxes, etc.). GNU make does the job. I had a quick look at nmake from Microsoft but GNU make is a lot more powerful in my opinion and it has a very active mailinglist :-) I would prefer building (and developing) on a *nix based platform myself but since it's not possible in our (embedded software) case, GNU make on Windows is a good second choice. -- Joost Leeuwesteijn > - > Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: > http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us > "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a > professional." --Mad Scientist --- This communication contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please return this email to the sender and delete it from your records. Diese Nachricht enthält vertrauliche Informationen. Sollten Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger dieser E-mail sein, senden Sie bitte diese an den Absender zurück und löschen Sie die E-mail aus Ihrem System. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 05:11:19PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote: >On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 13:36 -0700, Howard Chu wrote: >> IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense >> in this discussion. "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool. >> Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment already anyway. > >That is definitely not true. The Windows ports of make are quite useful >in native Windows environments, with no hint of POSIX (command line). >They can use the Windows shell instead of the UNIX shell, etc. > >Certainly you're not going to be able to run any POSIX-based makefile on >a Windows system without a full suite of common tools, but that doesn't >mean it makes no sense in other situations. > >Eli can speak more directly to this, though: I've never actually used >make in these situations. Cheers! I'm not Eli but as someone who is intimately familiar with Cygwin, I have to say that having a windows-only version of GNU make makes a lot of sense to me. Microsoft's version of NMAKE isn't very useful, IMO, so if you just want a way to build programs and don't care about having a full UNIX-like system, then a standalone make is the way to go and GNU make is one of the best makes around. cgf ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:36:53 -0700 > From: Howard Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense in this > discussion. Believe me, it does make sense to some. In a nutshell, if you use Cygwin or MSYS, you are forced to use them, and them alone, as there are subtle incompatibilities with other kinds of programs that can drive you up the wall sometimes. > "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool. It's no more POSIX that `ls'. I hope you won't try to claim that `ls' doesn't make sense outside of a POSIX environment. > Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment already > anyway. Not really. Make is just a program to invoke other programs given a set of rules. It only (loosely) assumes that those programs produce files, and doesn't care much about anything else. Since not only POSIX tools can produce files, Make does not require a POSIX environment. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 13:36 -0700, Howard Chu wrote: > IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense > in this discussion. "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool. > Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment already anyway. That is definitely not true. The Windows ports of make are quite useful in native Windows environments, with no hint of POSIX (command line). They can use the Windows shell instead of the UNIX shell, etc. Certainly you're not going to be able to run any POSIX-based makefile on a Windows system without a full suite of common tools, but that doesn't mean it makes no sense in other situations. Eli can speak more directly to this, though: I've never actually used make in these situations. Cheers! -- --- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
Paul Smith wrote: It looks like this discussion may have been premature, perhaps by as little as a few weeks or so, based on the fact that Savannah has Subversion support in beta right now and that there seems to be a lot of action around GIT support on Windows that is being published either now or very shortly. So, let's table this discussion for the time being. We'll revisit it later this year when hopefully some things have shaken out. In the meantime I'm going to play with some of these other tools. If you (esp. non-Linux users) have time to try them out as well I'd really appreciate any suggestions you come up with. IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense in this discussion. "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool. Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment already anyway. Whether or not you're building Windows-native code with it doesn't really enter the equation. Aside from that, happy to leave this for later. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sunhttp://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
It looks like this discussion may have been premature, perhaps by as little as a few weeks or so, based on the fact that Savannah has Subversion support in beta right now and that there seems to be a lot of action around GIT support on Windows that is being published either now or very shortly. So, let's table this discussion for the time being. We'll revisit it later this year when hopefully some things have shaken out. In the meantime I'm going to play with some of these other tools. If you (esp. non-Linux users) have time to try them out as well I'd really appreciate any suggestions you come up with. -- --- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Oct 14, 2007, at 11:11 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], bug-make@gnu.org Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:20 -0400 On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 21:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: Can you tell why? The main reasons are lack of functionality in CVS re renaming, removing, and reorganizing files. However, it's not a critical issue; I've lived with it for this long. The other problems CVS has (poor branch/ merge, no atomicity, server-only repositories, etc.) are not as big a problem for a project the size of GNU make. Then perhaps you don't need to switch at all. Doing so will require a non-trivial effort; I don't know how your free time, but mine is hardly enough to try debugging an occasional w32-related bug report. Is it really worth wasting what few resources we have on switching to another VCS? OTOH, Git has a git-cvsserver, which means that you can still access the Git repository with a standard CVS client. Most of the time, people chose to restrain the CVS access to read-only, but you can go read/write if you want (although I've heard of a couple of issues with write access, not sure whether this was only branch-related problems or real commit problems). -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:20 -0400 > > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 21:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Can you tell why? > > The main reasons are lack of functionality in CVS re renaming, removing, > and reorganizing files. However, it's not a critical issue; I've lived > with it for this long. The other problems CVS has (poor branch/merge, > no atomicity, server-only repositories, etc.) are not as big a problem > for a project the size of GNU make. Then perhaps you don't need to switch at all. Doing so will require a non-trivial effort; I don't know how your free time, but mine is hardly enough to try debugging an occasional w32-related bug report. Is it really worth wasting what few resources we have on switching to another VCS? > Another reason others have mentioned is making it simple for > "downstream" folks to work on make. Ideally I'd be happy to hand over > maintenance of the non-POSIX ports (for example) to others more > completely, and just pull from their changed trees. Why not give those who do work on non-POSIX ports write access to the CVS tree? > It looks like (as someone else mentioned) SVN may be supported on > Savannah "soonish". So another option is to wait for that. I certainly > don't want to switch more than once, if I do decide to switch. SVN certainly sounds as easier for use on Windows than GIT. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:22:56PM +0200, Ram??n Garc??a wrote: >In my opinion, distributed control version systems like GIT or >Mercurial are the way to go in the long term. In Sun all the >repositories are (or are being migrated to) Mercurial. > >There is only one serious limitation with GIT: each developer must have >a complete repository, that is, it is not posible to work with a >subdirectory. But this is not an issue for projects like GNU Make. > >I have no experience with GIT on Windows, but there is a page about it >in the GIT Wiki: http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/WindowsInstall That page seems to imply either MSys or Cygwin. Neither of those is a pure windows-only solution. I can see why people wouldn't want to install cygwin + perl + bash + tk + whatever just to do source control. I was reading the git mailing list for a while and one person was rabidly anti-cygwin - enough for me to eventually decide it wasn't worth getting a jolt of adrenaline one morning a week. I thought this person was actively working on a mingw port and, attitude aside, he seemed very competent. If the direction of the port was to use *MSYS* to do some of the heavy lifting then that's just too funny. Someone mentioned mercurial already. There is YA "enthusiastic" camp of people who think it is superior to git. The author made a pretty compelling case in a presentation I saw at a past OLS. I'm wondering if it is somewhat lighter weight in terms of number of packages that need to be installed. I don't know if Paul would consider this or not. It means convincing savannah sysadmins that this is a good idea, I guess. I could sponsor the hosting of GNU make at sourceware.org, which has mercurial installed, but I guess that's a sort of radical step. cgf ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 21:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Can you tell why? The main reasons are lack of functionality in CVS re renaming, removing, and reorganizing files. However, it's not a critical issue; I've lived with it for this long. The other problems CVS has (poor branch/merge, no atomicity, server-only repositories, etc.) are not as big a problem for a project the size of GNU make. Another reason others have mentioned is making it simple for "downstream" folks to work on make. Ideally I'd be happy to hand over maintenance of the non-POSIX ports (for example) to others more completely, and just pull from their changed trees. A sort of very, very miniature version of the Linux kernel development model. It's not such a huge hardship for me to apply patches that I really mind the current environment but it might help others--assuming that the tool works properly in their environment of course. It looks like (as someone else mentioned) SVN may be supported on Savannah "soonish". So another option is to wait for that. I certainly don't want to switch more than once, if I do decide to switch. Originally SVN would have been my definite preference, just based on its similarity to CVS and its portability. However, others have asked explicitly for GIT due to its distributed development model. Also the other autotools are all switching to GIT. So, maybe we should back up and reconsider: which of the four tools Savannah does or apparently will soon support do people feel is the best for GNU make: (1) stay with CVS, (2) GNU arch, (3) GIT, (4) Subversion. I've seen a lot of pro/con discussions which I can summarize if people want, but the big thing no one else seems to have addressed much in other discussions I've seen is portability. It LOOKS like there are native ports of GIT to MINGW, but I have no idea how complete and usable they are. If someone who has a Windows system could look into that it would be a big help. -- --- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On 2007-10-13 16:37Z, Paul Smith wrote: > > I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently, > Savannah supports (in addition to CVS) GNU arch and GIT. If SVN were > supported I'd probably go for that, because (a) it has great support for > alternative OSs like Windows, etc.; and (b) GNU make development is > currently straightforward enough that the advanced features of GIT > (advanced merging and peer-to-peer development) aren't critical. > However, SVN is not an option Although the FAQ https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/WhenSvN says SVN isn't available yet, that page was last edited six months ago and seems out of date in light of this post by one of the savannah hackers a month ago: https://savannah.gnu.org/task/index.php?7111#comment3 | savannah offers subversion as beta test (for information, I used it | for 1 month now without any problems). But savannah offers git and | arch too. So you have choice. I'd guess this is the savannah svn repository he's referring to: https://savannah.nongnu.org/svn/?group=scleaner in case anyone wants to see a concrete example. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 09:10:48PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:37:46 -0400 > > Cc: > > > > I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. > > Can you tell why? Paul already wrote: "I would like some more advanced SCM capabilities such as moving/renaming files (I've been putting off some code cleanups waiting for this)." Sam ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> Cc: Make Windows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bug-make
> From: Benoit SIGOURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:09:56 +0200
>
> > Is there a good native Windows port of GIT?
>
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/WindowsInstall
Thanks, I already found that page. However, it sounds like it only
points to the source (is that right?), and I'm not sure what do I do
to download the sources, even if I wanted it. There's no Download
link that leads me to some tarball or installer.
I'd prefer binaries, as building from sources is notoriously
problematic for MinGW ports of complex packages (they usually need
many tools to be installed and configured before the build will run to
completion, and the setup of those tools is not well documented). But
I don't see a pointer to a binary distribution.
> Git was designed the way we're used to design traditional UNIX
> programs: lots of small programs, each performing a simple task.
> Most of the "low level commands" (called "plumbing") are wrapped up
> in nicer, higher level interfaces ("porcelain"), and they happen to
> be written in Shell script (for many of them at least). So I don't
> think you can seriously use Git without having at least a minimal
> POSIX environment.
Yes, and therein is my gripe: lots of shell scripts means I need a
good port of a Unixy shell and other associated utilities that are
routinely invoked by shell scripts. I do have these installed, but I
really don't want to stress-test their compatibility each time I need
to commit a change or update my sandbox.
> On the other hand, Git has lots of GUIs, one of which (qgit) is
> written with Qt. Therefore, if it was written properly, it ought to
> work on Windows too (thanks Qt!). Gitk should also probably work
> (Tcl/Tk works on Windows AFAIK). I don't know about git-gui.
I don't think I need to worry about a GUI front end, since Emacs
already supports GIT. But again, having commands that need a Unixy
shell will make things harder, even with Emacs, because it by default
invokes the stock Windows shell.
That is why I asked Paul why he wanted to switch: Make is not a large
package, and its group of developers is quite small to expose the
problems with CVS.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
In my opinion, distributed control version systems like GIT or Mercurial are the way to go in the long term. In Sun all the repositories are (or are being migrated to) Mercurial. There is only one serious limitation with GIT: each developer must have a complete repository, that is, it is not posible to work with a subdirectory. But this is not an issue for projects like GNU Make. I have no experience with GIT on Windows, but there is a page about it in the GIT Wiki: http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/WindowsInstall Ramon ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Oct 13, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Benoit SIGOURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:18:42 +0200
Cc: Make Windows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bug-make
I frequently read Git's ML and it seems rather stable on Cygwin.
Which for me is a turn-off, because I don't want to install Cygwin.
Fair enough.
The MSYS version should work too, even though I haven't tried it
personally.
MSYS is just a fork of Cygwin, so it doesn't solve my problem above.
Is there a good native Windows port of GIT?
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/WindowsInstall
Git was designed the way we're used to design traditional UNIX
programs: lots of small programs, each performing a simple task.
Most of the "low level commands" (called "plumbing") are wrapped up
in nicer, higher level interfaces ("porcelain"), and they happen to
be written in Shell script (for many of them at least). So I don't
think you can seriously use Git without having at least a minimal
POSIX environment.
On the other hand, Git has lots of GUIs, one of which (qgit) is
written with Qt. Therefore, if it was written properly, it ought to
work on Windows too (thanks Qt!). Gitk should also probably work
(Tcl/Tk works on Windows AFAIK). I don't know about git-gui.
Let us know. Anyways, it's only a matter of time before proper
Windows support will be added straight into Git, I think. Demand for
a good Windows port is high and once Git will be entirely
librarified, it will be easy to write lots of tools on top of it
(like a TortoiseGit-like interface or whatever).
Cheers,
--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: Isn't there a pure MinGW (not msys) version too? This sounds unlikely because many commands in git-core are shell scripts (or sometimes Perl scripts) written on top of plumbing commands. But with the librarification of Git, it will probably be to achieve this... Not in the near future though. -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On 10/13/07, Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like GIT is where the mindshare is these days, plus a number of > the other autotools projects have already migrated (or are in the middle > of migrating) to GIT, so that's what I'd go with. > please give me your opinions on this change. Yes!!! Git rocks! It's *the* format for modern source control: git repositories can be modified, merged, mirrored, and otherwise messed with in so many useful ways. > GNU make development is > currently straightforward enough that the advanced features of GIT > (advanced merging and peer-to-peer development) aren't critical. They might not be critical for the main development team, but they are an enormous boon to others maintaining patches / modified versions (like potentially me!). Case in point: rsync and Eclipse are still using CVS, but I import them into git myself so I can manage patches with StGIT; if the upstream project uses git, that's even better. > I don't really know what the current state-of-the-art is WRT GIT on > non-POSIX systems Yes, this is the only potential drawback that I can think of. Matt ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> From: Benoit SIGOURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:52:58 +0200 > Cc: bug-make > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > Isn't there a pure MinGW (not msys) version too? > > > > This sounds unlikely because many commands in git-core are shell > scripts (or sometimes Perl scripts) written on top of plumbing commands. Another turn-off. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> From: Benoit SIGOURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:18:42 +0200 > Cc: Make Windows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bug-make > > I frequently read Git's ML and it seems rather stable on Cygwin. Which for me is a turn-off, because I don't want to install Cygwin. > The MSYS version should work too, even though I haven't tried it > personally. MSYS is just a fork of Cygwin, so it doesn't solve my problem above. Is there a good native Windows port of GIT? ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:37:46 -0400 > Cc: > > I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Can you tell why? ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:59:43 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > > Isn't there a pure MinGW (not msys) version too? If someone knows where to get it, please tell. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:37:46PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote: >Hi all; > >I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently, >Savannah supports (in addition to CVS) GNU arch and GIT. If SVN were >supported I'd probably go for that, because (a) it has great support for >alternative OSs like Windows, etc.; and (b) GNU make development is >currently straightforward enough that the advanced features of GIT >(advanced merging and peer-to-peer development) aren't critical. >However, SVN is not an option and I would like some more advanced SCM >capabilities such as moving/renaming files (I've been putting off some >code cleanups waiting for this). > >It seems like GIT is where the mindshare is these days, plus a number of >the other autotools projects have already migrated (or are in the middle >of migrating) to GIT, so that's what I'd go with. As with the other >projects, we'll maintain a read-only CVS mirror of the main GIT archive >at least for the time being so people can use that to obtain code, the >same way they do today. Still, it would be better if people had more >direct access; I'd be happy to delegate support for Windows (MINGW, >Cygwin, etc.) and pull those from other GIT repositories if that seems >reasonable. > >I don't really know what the current state-of-the-art is WRT GIT on >non-POSIX systems, so... please give me your opinions on this change. git is available for download from the standard Cygwin installation and it reportedly works fine. Isn't there a pure MinGW (not msys) version too? cgf ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
On Oct 13, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Paul Smith wrote: Hi all; I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently, Savannah supports (in addition to CVS) GNU arch and GIT. [...] I don't really know what the current state-of-the-art is WRT GIT on non-POSIX systems, so... please give me your opinions on this change. A very good change in perspective. I frequently read Git's ML and it seems rather stable on Cygwin. The MSYS version should work too, even though I haven't tried it personally. Some people happen to send bug reports on the ML, but that's not frequent. AFAIK the MSYS port is slightly behind WRT the standard version though. -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
