Re: [EM] Election method simulator code - revision control
Michael Allan wrote: I don't know if it's helpful information, but Mercurial and Git are functionally very similar. There isn't much to choose between them. I never understood why Torvalds and crew bothered coding Git in the first place. I use Mercurial. There's a bunch of hosting sites for both tools, but you don't really need them. Distributed revision control is logically peer to peer. It doesn't depend on central sites. As long as you have upload access to an ordinary Web server, you can share your code with anyone (even on the hosting sites) just by posting your repo. Here are my own repos, for example: http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/ I think I'll keep the current setup for now, though. The hosting sites seem to give additional tools to make it easier to coordinate, report and fix bugs, document, and so on. If I grow out of the hosting site, I'll consider moving elsewhere, but there's no risk of that yet :-) As for Github vs Google, I haven't thought much about it. I pretty much just picked a reasonably well known hosting site. Is Git very different from svn? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election method simulator code - revision control
Yes, Git differs in the structure of its network. Git's network is distributed wheras Subversion's is centralized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control#Distributed_revision_control The most interesting consequence is political. The authors in a distributed network require no permission from any authority in order to collaborate on the text (source code or whatever) that is under revision control. They can join the network without anybody's say-so, because it is maintained entirely by author-peers. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: Michael Allan wrote: I don't know if it's helpful information, but Mercurial and Git are functionally very similar. There isn't much to choose between them. I never understood why Torvalds and crew bothered coding Git in the first place. I use Mercurial. There's a bunch of hosting sites for both tools, but you don't really need them. Distributed revision control is logically peer to peer. It doesn't depend on central sites. As long as you have upload access to an ordinary Web server, you can share your code with anyone (even on the hosting sites) just by posting your repo. Here are my own repos, for example: http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/ I think I'll keep the current setup for now, though. The hosting sites seem to give additional tools to make it easier to coordinate, report and fix bugs, document, and so on. If I grow out of the hosting site, I'll consider moving elsewhere, but there's no risk of that yet :-) As for Github vs Google, I haven't thought much about it. I pretty much just picked a reasonably well known hosting site. Is Git very different from svn? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Election method simulator code - revision control
I don't know if it's helpful information, but Mercurial and Git are functionally very similar. There isn't much to choose between them. I never understood why Torvalds and crew bothered coding Git in the first place. I use Mercurial. There's a bunch of hosting sites for both tools, but you don't really need them. Distributed revision control is logically peer to peer. It doesn't depend on central sites. As long as you have upload access to an ordinary Web server, you can share your code with anyone (even on the hosting sites) just by posting your repo. Here are my own repos, for example: http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/ -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Duane Johnson wrote: Git and GitHub has the largest mindshare among open source developers that I am aware of (I come from the open source dev community, not academia). If you want to be discovered or collaborate, I recommend that route. Brian Olson b...@bolson.org wrote: I counter-recommend git. I don't like it. If you like the new 'distributed version control' system style, I recommend Mercurial. code.google.com also supports mercurial. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Election method simulator code
Quite some time ago, I rewrote and expanded the singlewinner part of my election method analysis program, mainly to add a cache to make X,,Y and X//Y methods very fast if results for base methods and sets X and Y had been calculated earlier -- and to only calculate the pairwise matrix one instead of 200 times if I were to find the results of 200 Condorcet methods. The last week or so, I've been cleaning up that code, and a version is up on Google Code at http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rd5krp . It's only tested on Linux, has some known bugs, and the actual structure isn't documented apart from comments, but there it is. I'll probably continue working on it now that I know how versioning works :-) If anyone has any questions or want to add to it, go ahead and reply! Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election method simulator code
I recommend you put it up on GitHub. Git handles versioning and source control for you, and github is a good place for people who want to suggest code changes to do it directly, so it's easy for you to just accept or reject those suggestions. If you don't want to have to learn Git's command-line interface, there are a few gui tools: you can use git-cola for making checkins, and giggle or gitg for looking at the history of checkins. 2011/5/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com Quite some time ago, I rewrote and expanded the singlewinner part of my election method analysis program, mainly to add a cache to make X,,Y and X//Y methods very fast if results for base methods and sets X and Y had been calculated earlier -- and to only calculate the pairwise matrix one instead of 200 times if I were to find the results of 200 Condorcet methods. The last week or so, I've been cleaning up that code, and a version is up on Google Code at http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rd5krp . It's only tested on Linux, has some known bugs, and the actual structure isn't documented apart from comments, but there it is. I'll probably continue working on it now that I know how versioning works :-) If anyone has any questions or want to add to it, go ahead and reply! Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election method simulator code
I counter-recommend git. I don't like it. If you like the new 'distributed version control' system style, I recommend Mercurial. code.google.com also supports mercurial. My own election simulator is also up on google code, also with subversion. It's kinda hidden inside my project for multi-language (C/Java/perl) election method implementation library. http://code.google.com/p/voteutil/ http://code.google.com/p/voteutil/source/browse/#svn%2Fsim_one_seat On May 6, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I recommend you put it up on GitHub. Git handles versioning and source control for you, and github is a good place for people who want to suggest code changes to do it directly, so it's easy for you to just accept or reject those suggestions. If you don't want to have to learn Git's command-line interface, there are a few gui tools: you can use git-cola for making checkins, and giggle or gitg for looking at the history of checkins. 2011/5/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com Quite some time ago, I rewrote and expanded the singlewinner part of my election method analysis program, mainly to add a cache to make X,,Y and X//Y methods very fast if results for base methods and sets X and Y had been calculated earlier -- and to only calculate the pairwise matrix one instead of 200 times if I were to find the results of 200 Condorcet methods. The last week or so, I've been cleaning up that code, and a version is up on Google Code at http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rd5krp . It's only tested on Linux, has some known bugs, and the actual structure isn't documented apart from comments, but there it is. I'll probably continue working on it now that I know how versioning works :-) If anyone has any questions or want to add to it, go ahead and reply! Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election method simulator code
Git and GitHub has the largest mindshare among open source developers that I am aware of (I come from the open source dev community, not academia). If you want to be discovered or collaborate, I recommend that route. Duane On May 6, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Brian Olson b...@bolson.org wrote: I counter-recommend git. I don't like it. If you like the new 'distributed version control' system style, I recommend Mercurial. code.google.com also supports mercurial. My own election simulator is also up on google code, also with subversion. It's kinda hidden inside my project for multi-language (C/Java/perl) election method implementation library. http://code.google.com/p/voteutil/ http://code.google.com/p/voteutil/source/browse/#svn%2Fsim_one_seathttp://code.google.com/p/voteutil/source/browse/#svn/sim_one_seat On May 6, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I recommend you put it up on GitHub. Git handles versioning and source control for you, and github is a good place for people who want to suggest code changes to do it directly, so it's easy for you to just accept or reject those suggestions. If you don't want to have to learn Git's command-line interface, there are a few gui tools: you can use git-cola for making checkins, and giggle or gitg for looking at the history of checkins. 2011/5/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com Quite some time ago, I rewrote and expanded the singlewinner part of my election method analysis program, mainly to add a cache to make X,,Y and X//Y methods very fast if results for base methods and sets X and Y had been calculated earlier -- and to only calculate the pairwise matrix one instead of 200 times if I were to find the results of 200 Condorcet methods. The last week or so, I've been cleaning up that code, and a version is up on Google Code at http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rd5krp . It's only tested on Linux, has some known bugs, and the actual structure isn't documented apart from comments, but there it is. I'll probably continue working on it now that I know how versioning works :-) If anyone has any questions or want to add to it, go ahead and reply! Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
