Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Jonathon Reinhart]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Russel Winder  wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote:
>> > The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then
>>
>> force it to the mainline.
>>
>> No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master"
>> is
>> protected, then no one, not even an admin, can re-write history and
>> force
>> push to it.
>
> So if BitBucket supports this, the admins for the mainline SCons and
> SCons-Contrib repositories should mark all the branches as protected?

Not necessarily "all" of the branches, but definitely the ones that
are final/deliverable (e.g. "master" in git parlance). I also
recommend protecting long-lived feature branches, e.g. the Python 3
effort, where multiple people may be working on it for quite a while.

>> Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local
>> development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature
>> branch before it is merged into master. Very few people are
>> interested in
>> rewriting history of a published tree.
>
> I have never been a user of history rewriting as I tend to publish all
> my repositories all the time. Maybe my workfow and approach is wrong,
> and that I should keep all work private and so rebasable and squashable
> in both Hg and Git until the point of publishing for the pull request?

IMO, it's all about a published branch policy for the project. For example:
- master - Stable at all times; protected; periodically tagged for
major releases
- devel - Bleeding edge; mostly stable; protected; periodically merged
into master at stable points
- (everything else) - In-progress feature/issue branch; **not
protected** and may be rebased/rewritten at any time

This allows you to say "hey guys, check out my WIP branch", but with a
disclaimer that it may be rewritten, giving you the power to go back
and change things based on code review.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[rupert THURNER]

On Nov 28, 2016 10:42, "Russel Winder"  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote:
> > Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local
> > development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature
> > branch before it is merged into master. Very few people are
> > interested in
> > rewriting history of a published tree.
>
> I have never been a user of history rewriting as I tend to publish all
> my repositories all the time. Maybe my workfow and approach is wrong,
> and that I should keep all work private and so rebasable and squashable
> in both Hg and Git until the point of publishing for the pull request?

Personally I like somebody else looking at my commit, giving feedback and I
then improve it. There are many ways to achieve this. You could just share
via email like done in Linux. Change a commit for a new pull request. Do a
git Gerrit like workflow and push to a mutable branch. Mercurial goes a
step further and marks commits as "draft". A little bit long but might be
worth a read:
http://www.gerg.ca/evolve/sharing.html,
http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/06/23/please-stop-using-mq/

Rupert
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Russel Winder]

On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote:
> > The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then
> 
> force it to the mainline.
> 
> No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master"
> is
> protected, then no one, not even an admin, can re-write history and
> force
> push to it.

So if BitBucket supports this, the admins for the mainline SCons and
SCons-Contrib repositories should mark all the branches as protected?

> Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local
> development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature
> branch before it is merged into master. Very few people are
> interested in
> rewriting history of a published tree.

I have never been a user of history rewriting as I tend to publish all
my repositories all the time. Maybe my workfow and approach is wrong,
and that I should keep all work private and so rebasable and squashable
in both Hg and Git until the point of publishing for the pull request?

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Jonathon Reinhart]

> The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then
force it to the mainline.

No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master" is
protected, then no one, not even an admin, can re-write history and force
push to it.

Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local
development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature
branch before it is merged into master. Very few people are interested in
rewriting history of a published tree.

On Nov 27, 2016 10:10 AM, "Russel Winder"  wrote:

> On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 12:39 +0100, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
> Absolutely no reason to apologise for contributing.
>
> > sorry for posting here, i usually just lurk on this list because i am
> > interested in build tools. i doubt that mercurial will die out -
> > their
> > mailing list seems more busy than ever. history rewrite can be done
> > with
> > mercurial nowadays with extensions, and will come even more, just
> > note
> > facebooks "hg absorb" extension. a nice write up about future plans
> > from
> > the mozilla dev list:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.version-control/nh4fITF
> > lEMk/discussion
>
> In a sense introducing history rewriting is undermining the whole point
> of Mercurial in a world dominated by Git.
>
> The really important point in the email, at least for me, is that all
> that hoo-ha a couple of years ago that Mercurial would remain a Python
> 2 application as it was simply to hard to switch from ASCII string to
> Unicode strings has gone away and Mercurial will work on Python 3.
>
> Of course if a Rust version really does come out, it may sweep away the
> Python version!
>
> Interesting that groups within Google, Facebook, Mozilla, and Unity are
> Mercurial hold-outs in the tide of Git, and even fighting back with
> movers from Git to Mercurial.
>
> The write up makes it sound a bit like Google, Facebook, Mozilla, and
> Unity are single entities where in fact that a many hundreds of groups
> all acting independently within the organizations.
>
> That Mercurial will run on Python 3 re-energises my willingness to do
> things with Mercurial.
>
> --
> Russel.
> 
> =
> Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip:
> sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
> 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Russel Winder]

On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 12:39 +0100, rupert THURNER wrote:

Absolutely no reason to apologise for contributing.

> sorry for posting here, i usually just lurk on this list because i am
> interested in build tools. i doubt that mercurial will die out -
> their
> mailing list seems more busy than ever. history rewrite can be done
> with
> mercurial nowadays with extensions, and will come even more, just
> note
> facebooks "hg absorb" extension. a nice write up about future plans
> from
> the mozilla dev list:
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.version-control/nh4fITF
> lEMk/discussion

In a sense introducing history rewriting is undermining the whole point
of Mercurial in a world dominated by Git.

The really important point in the email, at least for me, is that all
that hoo-ha a couple of years ago that Mercurial would remain a Python
2 application as it was simply to hard to switch from ASCII string to
Unicode strings has gone away and Mercurial will work on Python 3.

Of course if a Rust version really does come out, it may sweep away the
Python version!

Interesting that groups within Google, Facebook, Mozilla, and Unity are
Mercurial hold-outs in the tide of Git, and even fighting back with
movers from Git to Mercurial.

The write up makes it sound a bit like Google, Facebook, Mozilla, and
Unity are single entities where in fact that a many hundreds of groups
all acting independently within the organizations. 

That Mercurial will run on Python 3 re-energises my willingness to do
things with Mercurial. 

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[rupert THURNER]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Russel Winder 
wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:42 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote:
> > Dirk Bächle  writes:
> >
> > > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...
> >
> > All of the major Git hosting providers have *protected branches*
> > which are
> > immutable.
>
> But isn't that a red herring? Git hosters are just a final mainline
> hoster imposing CVCS models. Git is all about DVCS ostensibly, though
> more and more people are reverting to CVCS with local caching as their
> working model because of GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket.
>
> The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then
> force it to the mainline. Some people think this a good thing.
> Especially with the rise on GitHub of the habit of pull requests
> demanding commit squashing.
>

sorry for posting here, i usually just lurk on this list because i am
interested in build tools. i doubt that mercurial will die out - their
mailing list seems more busy than ever. history rewrite can be done with
mercurial nowadays with extensions, and will come even more, just note
facebooks "hg absorb" extension. a nice write up about future plans from
the mozilla dev list:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.version-control/nh4fITFlEMk/discussion


rupert
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Russel Winder]

On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:42 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote:
> Dirk Bächle  writes:
> 
> > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...
> 
> All of the major Git hosting providers have *protected branches*
> which are
> immutable.

But isn't that a red herring? Git hosters are just a final mainline
hoster imposing CVCS models. Git is all about DVCS ostensibly, though
more and more people are reverting to CVCS with local caching as their
working model because of GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket.

The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then
force it to the mainline. Some people think this a good thing.
Especially with the rise on GitHub of the habit of pull requests
demanding commit squashing.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Jonathon Reinhart]

Dirk Bächle  writes:

> I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...

All of the major Git hosting providers have *protected branches* which are
immutable.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Saša Janiška]

Dirk Bächle  writes:

> I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...maybe that's
> why git doesn't seem to be so more powerful than hg to me, and why I
> still consider them to be "on par" regarding functionality. At least
> for the work I have to do with them...

For immutability lovers I can only recommend: Fossil
(http://fossil-scm.org/) - I use it for *all* my personal stuff, but for
public projects it seems that Git won the battle (although I’m waiting
that Fossil gets something ala git-hg bridge).


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogī
[or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and
realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled.
He sees everything — whether it be pebbles, stones or gold — as the same.

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Neal Becker]

Russel Winder wrote:

> There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from
> Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have
> died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and
> that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git – even though
> BitBucket is now a Git repository repository.

Well, I am a longtime hg user, and my experience is just the opposite.  I 
find git terribly complex.  Everytime I try to do something that should be 
simple, I refer to manpages that go on endlessly about options, written in a 
language I know nothing about.  In contrast, hg I find much simpler, and 
with tortoisehg interface, it's almost fun.

Obviously I'm in the minority here, and I'm not doing much contributing 
anyway.  But just saying, there is another side to this.

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Dirk Baechle]

Sorry...¨twice as many¨, duh.

Dirk

Am 12. Mai 2016 11:12:19 MESZ, schrieb Dirk Baechle :
>+1 from me for the idea of a git mirror...like this we could have both
>worlds combined. And we would see twice as much contributions as
>before. ;)
>
>Dirk
>
>
>Am 12. Mai 2016 09:27:12 MESZ, schrieb anatoly techtonik
>:
>>On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Bill Deegan
>
>>wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git
>>now, would
>>> remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?
>>
>>No. Let's run a Git mirror and see how many fixes will end up there.
>>HG is able to pull them,
>>___
>>Scons-dev mailing list
>>Scons-dev@scons.org
>>https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>-- 
>Sent from my Android with K-9 Mail.
>
>
>
>___
>Scons-dev mailing list
>Scons-dev@scons.org
>https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android with K-9 Mail.___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Dirk Baechle]

+1 from me for the idea of a git mirror...like this we could have both worlds 
combined. And we would see twice as much contributions as before. ;)

Dirk


Am 12. Mai 2016 09:27:12 MESZ, schrieb anatoly techtonik :
>On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Bill Deegan 
>wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git
>now, would
>> remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?
>
>No. Let's run a Git mirror and see how many fixes will end up there.
>HG is able to pull them,
>___
>Scons-dev mailing list
>Scons-dev@scons.org
>https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android with K-9 Mail.___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[anatoly techtonik]

To sum up my opinion - I am not against going to Git+GitHub, but only
when current repository history is cleaned up of the garbage, such as
DocBook templates and is kept small of that garbage and binary files.
SCons repository size shows that it is untidy mess.
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[anatoly techtonik]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Bill Deegan  wrote:
> All,
>
> So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git now, would
> remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?

No. Let's run a Git mirror and see how many fixes will end up there.
HG is able to pull them,
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Paweł Tomulik]

I'm git user, and I feel pain each time there is a need to contribute to
scons.

I believe, that moving to git + github could get scons going and get
attention of much more persons/potential contributors (majority of devs
uses git and GH seems to be more popular than BB these days). I had a
chance to touch some GH-hosted projects, and they're usually more
dynamic than BB ones.

Take a look at CMake:
https://github.com/orgs/Kitware/people - 10 devs,
https://github.com/Kitware/CMake - 66 contributors active in last 2
years
(https://github.com/Kitware/CMake/graphs/contributors?from=2014-01-01=2016-05-11=c)

SCons is much better should go for much more!


W dniu 11.05.2016 o 16:23, Jonathon Reinhart pisze:
> There has been at least one case where I discovered a small issue with
> SCons and went to go submit a pull request, but then remembered SCons
> uses hg, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to install hg, and
> learn the differences between it and Git.
>
> Is this a case of laziness? Perhaps. But I suspect there are many
> others who feel the same. With Git, many people already understand the
> branch, push, pull request model.
>
> This goes for other open source projects using other VCS as well. I
> have encountered this same laziness when projects required SVN, or
> patches emailed.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Mark A. Flacy  > wrote:
>
> I'd say that git is perfectly happy with multiple heads in a given
> repository while hg is pretty cranky with that setup. Or at least
> it was when I last used hg.
>
>  
>
> Once you've pushed something to an external repository with git,
> the history is pretty much unmutable. You'd have to convince the
> rest of the world to agree with your view of the new history.
>
>  
>
> I guess the bottom line for scons is that there are some people
> who have publicly stated that using hg over git will probably
> convince them to do something else than contribute to the project.
> I haven't been watching that closely, but have there been cases of
> the reverse? If not, I should think that would answer the question.
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> Mark A. Flacy
>
> mfl...@verizon.net 
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 09:43:24 AM Dirk Bächle wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
>
> >
>
> > On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your
> internal
>
> > > projects.
>
> > No need to get formal... ;)
>
> >
>
> > I am using git for several projects (some own and some
> open-source), and I
>
> > don't mind it. As I tried to explain before, I'm not opposed to
> making the
>
> > switch to git for the SCons repo...but I'm trying to make sure
> that we're
>
> > doing it for the right reasons.
>
> >
>
> > And when single persons claim that there is a "hindrance" for
> them in
>
> > contributing to SCons currently, because there's so much syntax
> that is
>
> > hard to remember I start to wonder: with how many issues at the
> same time
>
> > are these users juggling? Because if one works on at most one
> bug at a
>
> > time, one should be able to get away with a "linear series of
> commits":
>
> >
>
> > hg clone ...
>
> > # edit
>
> > hg commit
>
> > hg pull / push
>
> >
>
> > which are all the same as in git. One can even throw in a "hg
> add" and it
>
> > won't hurt, but only remind you that the file is already under
> version
>
> > control. ;)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's not about my personal preferences, it's all about the project.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> >
>
> > Dirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > P.S.: One of my personal preferences is: I *don't* want the
> history in my
>
> > repos to be mutable...maybe that's why git doesn't seem to be so
> more
>
> > powerful than hg to me, and why I still consider them to be "on par"
>
> > regarding functionality. At least for the work I have to do with
> them...
>
> >
>
> > ___
>
> > Scons-dev mailing list
>
> > Scons-dev@scons.org 
>
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org 
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev


-- 
Paweł Tomulik, tel. (22) 234 7925
Instytut Techniki Lotniczej i Mechaniki Stosowanej
Politechnika Warszawska

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Tim Jenness]

> On May 11, 2016, at 07:23 , Jonathon Reinhart  
> wrote:
> 
> There has been at least one case where I discovered a small issue with SCons 
> and went to go submit a pull request, but then remembered SCons uses hg, and 
> decided it wasn't worth the effort to install hg, and learn the differences 
> between it and Git.
> 
> Is this a case of laziness? Perhaps. But I suspect there are many others who 
> feel the same. With Git, many people already understand the branch, push, 
> pull request model.
> 

I wouldn’t call it laziness as such. I think of it more as overcoming the 
activation energy. Many of us have many todo items trying to grab our attention 
and it’s much easier sometimes to just give up and do something else that’s 
equally important. We obviously could all learn the hg/bitbucket workflow if 
the motivation was sufficiently high but for me a git/github workflow will 
always win out. As I said though, don’t change on my account.

— 
Tim Jenness

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Mark A. Flacy]

I'd say that git is perfectly happy with multiple heads in a given repository 
while hg is pretty 
cranky with that setup.  Or at least it was when I last used hg.

Once you've pushed something to an external repository with git, the history is 
pretty much 
unmutable.  You'd have to convince the rest of the world to agree with your 
view of the new 
history.

I guess the bottom line for scons is that there are some people who have 
publicly stated that 
using hg over git will probably convince them to do something else than 
contribute to the project.  
I haven't been watching that closely, but have there been cases of the reverse? 
 If not, I should 
think that would answer the question.

-- 
Mark A. Flacy
/mfl...@verizon.net/


> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
> > Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal
> > projects.
> No need to get formal... ;)
> 
> I am using git for several projects (some own and some open-source), and I
> don't mind it. As I tried to explain before, I'm not opposed to making the
> switch to git for the SCons repo...but I'm trying to make sure that we're
> doing it for the right reasons.
> 
> And when single persons claim that there is a "hindrance" for them in
> contributing to SCons currently, because there's so much syntax that is
> hard to remember I start to wonder: with how many issues at the same time
> are these users juggling? Because if one works on at most one bug at a
> time, one should be able to get away with a "linear series of commits":
> 
>hg clone ...
># edit
>hg commit
>hg pull / push
> 
> which are all the same as in git. One can even throw in a "hg add" and it
> won't hurt, but only remind you that the file is already under version
> control. ;)
> 
> 
> It's not about my personal preferences, it's all about the project.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> 
> P.S.: One of my personal preferences is: I *don't* want the history in my
> repos to be mutable...maybe that's why git doesn't seem to be so more
> powerful than hg to me, and why I still consider them to be "on par"
> regarding functionality. At least for the work I have to do with them...
> 
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Dirk Bächle]

Hi Mark,

On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote:

Hmm.

I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), 
Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, TLA, HG, BZR, and Git. I won't
claim to have used svn in any real sense.

The first 4 of that list were centralized version control systems and so not 
applicable to this discussion.

Of arch, tla, hg, bzr, and git, I'd say that I enjoyed bzr over hg for a rather 
long time. Now that I've used git, I think that git
has the correct distributed model over hg and bzr.

Once you realize that git doesn't require history to be immutable (but once 
you've shared history, you have a problem if you change
it), you'll find that you can do a lot of things that simply are not possible 
with hg and bzr. (That's not entirely true; the patch
queue for hg allowed you to do some things that you can do with git but with a 
tremendous amount of pain.)

Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal projects.



No need to get formal... ;)

I am using git for several projects (some own and some open-source), and I don't mind it. As I tried to explain before, I'm not 
opposed to making the switch to git for the SCons repo...but I'm trying to make sure that we're doing it for the right reasons.


And when single persons claim that there is a "hindrance" for them in contributing to SCons currently, because there's so much 
syntax that is hard to remember I start to wonder: with how many issues at the same time are these users juggling? Because if one 
works on at most one bug at a time, one should be able to get away with a "linear series of commits":


  hg clone ...
  # edit
  hg commit
  hg pull / push

which are all the same as in git. One can even throw in a "hg add" and it won't hurt, but only remind you that the file is already 
under version control. ;)



It's not about my personal preferences, it's all about the project.

Best regards,

Dirk


P.S.: One of my personal preferences is: I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...maybe that's why git doesn't seem to 
be so more powerful than hg to me, and why I still consider them to be "on par" regarding functionality. At least for the work I 
have to do with them...


___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Mark A. Flacy]

Hmm.

I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), 
Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, 
TLA, HG, BZR, and Git.  I won't claim to have used svn in any real sense.

The first 4 of that list were centralized version control systems and so not 
applicable to this 
discussion.

Of arch, tla, hg, bzr, and git, I'd say that I enjoyed bzr over hg for a rather 
long time.  Now that I've 
used git, I think that git has the correct distributed model over hg and bzr.

Once you realize that git doesn't require history to be immutable (but once 
you've shared history, 
you have a problem if you change it), you'll find that you can do a lot of 
things that simply are not 
possible with hg and bzr.  (That's not entirely true; the patch queue for hg 
allowed you to do some 
things that you can do with git but with a tremendous amount of pain.)

Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal projects.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/leo-editor contains *somewhere* a 
statement from Mr. 
Ream that he was able to do things with git that he was unable to do with bzr.

-- 
Mark A. Flacy
/mfl...@verizon.net/


> Hi there,
> 
> On 09.05.2016 16:57, Rob Boehne wrote:
> > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
> > having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
> > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
> > build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.
> 
> and because you don't use an IDE (like Eclipse) that would support both
> DVCS in a transparent fashion, and because you don't want to use a git-hg
> bridge?
> 
> > I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
> > competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
> > other way around.
> 
> I'm one of the latter category, and obviously a dying species ;) according
> to:
> 
>http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003374.html
> 
> Don't let me hinder progress, and feel free to switch to git at any
> time...but I then won't be much of a help when it comes to updating the
> workflow descriptions in the Wiki or helping out newcomers with DVCS
> problems.
> 
> > This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
> > extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
> > IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.
> 
> 
> When we're talking about things like "effort" and "git as being less
> painful", I'd like to renew my call for pointers to large open-source
> projects that have switched to git as DVCS (from hg preferably):
> 
>http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003358.html
> 
> Does anyone have a concrete example of a project that experienced a giant
> productivity boost, based on a switch of the DVCS?
> I understand that for you, and Tim, using git it would be less of a
> hindrance to simply "check in" the changes and extensions for SCons that
> you seem to have in the hopper. But I'm interested in increasing activity
> in the "long run" for the project. ;)
> 
> So, if you say that you're planning to get an active contributor, ready to
> help out on the mailing lists and squashing a bug now and then...well, then
> you win me over pretty fast. :)
> 
> 
> Finally, the obligatory pointers to the archives for this and related
> discussion(s):
> 
>http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003344.html
>http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003352.html
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Gary Oberbrunner]

It would certainly make it easier for me to contribute; not that I've had
that much to contribute recently, but git is in my fingers now and I have
to remind myself how to do things in hg.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Bill Deegan 
wrote:

> All,
>
> So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git now,
> would remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?
>
> -Bill
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Tim Jenness  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 9, 2016, at 07:57 , Rob Boehne  wrote:
>> >
>> > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
>> > having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
>> > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
>> > build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.
>> >
>> > I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
>> > competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
>> > other way around.  This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
>> > extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
>> > IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.
>> >
>>
>> I have to agree. Whilst I am really interested in helping with the python
>> 3 port the hg hurdle has just meant I haven’t found the time. I have too
>> many other things pulling at me that I can do easily with my git workflow.
>>
>> —
>> Tim Jenness
>>
>> ___
>> Scons-dev mailing list
>> Scons-dev@scons.org
>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>>
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>


-- 
Gary
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Dirk Bächle]

Hi there,

On 09.05.2016 16:57, Rob Boehne wrote:

For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.



and because you don't use an IDE (like Eclipse) that would support both
DVCS in a transparent fashion, and because you don't want to use a git-hg
bridge?


I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
other way around.


I'm one of the latter category, and obviously a dying species ;) according to:

  http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003374.html

Don't let me hinder progress, and feel free to switch to git at any time...but
I then won't be much of a help when it comes to updating the workflow 
descriptions
in the Wiki or helping out newcomers with DVCS problems.


This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.




When we're talking about things like "effort" and "git as being less painful", 
I'd
like to renew my call for pointers to large open-source projects that have 
switched
to git as DVCS (from hg preferably):

  http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003358.html

Does anyone have a concrete example of a project that experienced a giant 
productivity
boost, based on a switch of the DVCS?
I understand that for you, and Tim, using git it would be less of a hindrance 
to simply
"check in" the changes and extensions for SCons that you seem to have in the 
hopper.
But I'm interested in increasing activity in the "long run" for the project. ;)

So, if you say that you're planning to get an active contributor, ready to help out on the mailing lists and squashing a bug now and 
then...well, then you win me over pretty fast. :)



Finally, the obligatory pointers to the archives for this and related 
discussion(s):

  http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003344.html
  http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003352.html

Best regards,

Dirk

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Russel Winder]

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 10:13 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote:
> All,
> 
> So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git
> now,
> would remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?
> 

We just need to be careful that Git supporters are quick and vocal,
whereas Mercurial folk are less so.

My feeling is that a move to Git on BitBucket would be helpful to
getting serendipitous help with pull requests. The situation has
changed markedly since Steven made the choice to move from Subversion
to Mercurial. I see no reason to reflect on that decision, it was right
at the time. I think though that staying on BitBucket but switching to
Git would be a good decision for the world as it is today.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Bill Deegan]

All,

So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git now,
would remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes?

-Bill

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Tim Jenness  wrote:

>
> > On May 9, 2016, at 07:57 , Rob Boehne  wrote:
> >
> > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
> > having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
> > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
> > build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.
> >
> > I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
> > competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
> > other way around.  This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
> > extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
> > IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.
> >
>
> I have to agree. Whilst I am really interested in helping with the python
> 3 port the hg hurdle has just meant I haven’t found the time. I have too
> many other things pulling at me that I can do easily with my git workflow.
>
> —
> Tim Jenness
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Tim Jenness]

> On May 9, 2016, at 07:57 , Rob Boehne  wrote:
> 
> For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
> having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
> I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
> build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.
> 
> I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
> competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
> other way around.  This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
> extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
> IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.
> 

I have to agree. Whilst I am really interested in helping with the python 3 
port the hg hurdle has just meant I haven’t found the time. I have too many 
other things pulling at me that I can do easily with my git workflow.

— 
Tim Jenness

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Rob Boehne]

For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.

I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
other way around.  This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.


Robert Boehne

On 5/9/16, 7:42 AM, "Scons-dev on behalf of Russel Winder"
 wrote:

>There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from
>Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have
>died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and
>that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git ­ even though
>BitBucket is now a Git repository repository.
>-- 
>Russel.
>==
>===
>Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip:
>sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
>41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
>London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
>

___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Bill Deegan]

Russel,

I would say inertia postponed a decision.
I'd like to change to git, but it's not a high priority.
I'd like to get py2/3 work done and released and then revisit.

-Bill

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Russel Winder  wrote:

> There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from
> Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have
> died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and
> that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git – even though
> BitBucket is now a Git repository repository.
> --
> Russel.
>
> =
> Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip:
> sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
> 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
>
>
> ___
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev@scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

[Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Russel Winder]

There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from
Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have
died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and
that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git – even though
BitBucket is now a Git repository repository.
-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev