Re: cvs better than git?

Greg A. Woods wrote in : |At Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:37:30 +0200, a l3x wrote: |Subject: Re: cvs better than git? |> git follows a snapshot like approach to version control. but this view of |> history bites you as can be seen in "merge commits". requiring "rebasing&quo

Re: cvs better than git?

At Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:37:30 +0200, a l3x wrote: Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > git follows a snapshot like approach to version control. but this view of > history bites you as can be seen in "merge commits". requiring "rebasing" > things and actually &qu

Re: cvs better than git?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:37:30 +, a l3x wrote: ... > git follows a snapshot like approach to version control. but this view of > history bites you as can be seen in "merge commits". Excuse me? Is there any VCS that doesn't record merges? > requiring "rebasing" things and actually "rewriting

Re: cvs better than git?

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:51 AM Andreas Krey wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:53:49 +, Aaron B. wrote: > ... > > ...if it's not final, why is it called a "commit"? > > Commits in git are immutable - given the commit id you can even verify its > contents. But since they start their existence

Re: cvs better than git?

At Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:45:44 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > Something done on your local repository is not truly committed to > start with. And it should be run through unit tests and so on, on the > central repository, before being committed to

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 06:48:54PM +0100, Sad Clouds wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:26:48 +0200 > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > I hear what you say, but it's still a fact that even good people make > > errors all the time. So it's not really that much about "trust" as > > about in the end

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:36:23 +0200 Andreas Krey wrote: > > Even when you have unit tests (which you should), there are still plenty > > of errors not caught by that. However, automatically running unit tests > > on all code to be committed, *before* it is committed, is also very > > valuable.

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:26:48 +0200 Johnny Billquist wrote: > I hear what you say, but it's still a fact that even good people make > errors all the time. So it's not really that much about "trust" as > about in the end getting the damn thing right. Prestige have no place > there. If you think

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 18:49, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:34:30 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... That is what literally the word "commit" means. Until that point, you are not committed. Please excuse me for not getting that, with 'committing', you don't mean creating git commits in

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:34:30 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > That is what literally the word "commit" means. Until that point, you > are not committed. Please excuse me for not getting that, with 'committing', you don't mean creating git commits in the context of talking about git. I mean,

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 18:17, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:59:59 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... You're a bit hung up on the word 'commit', and the finality of commits in some VCSes, it seems. So are obviously everyone using git in combination with gerrit... What? The gerrit model

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 18:17, Sad Clouds wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:15:44 +0200 Johnny Billquist wrote: Not talking about a specific tool, but the process then. There are multiple advantages by having code reviewed. First of all, noone is perfect. People make mistakes all the time, and having two

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:15:44 +0200 Johnny Billquist wrote: > Not talking about a specific tool, but the process then. > > There are multiple advantages by having code reviewed. > First of all, noone is perfect. People make mistakes all the time, > and having two people look at it already reduce

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:59:59 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > >You're a bit hung up on the word 'commit', and the finality of commits > >in some VCSes, it seems. > > So are obviously everyone using git in combination with gerrit... What? The gerrit model is exactly that: Make commits to be

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 18:02, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:45:44 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... Something done on your local repository is not truly committed to start with. And it should be run through unit tests and so on, on the central repository, before being committed to the

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:45:44 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > Something done on your local repository is not truly committed to start > with. And it should be run through unit tests and so on, on the central > repository, before being committed to the central repository. When you try to

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 17:55, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:26:05 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... What? I can't believe you are ignorant enough to not know that each file in cvs have a version number for each commit on it. ETOOLONGAGO; this is starting to slip my mind. Yes, files have

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:26:05 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > What? I can't believe you are ignorant enough to not know that each file > in cvs have a version number for each commit on it. ETOOLONGAGO; this is starting to slip my mind. Yes, files have revision numbers. But they are nearly

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 17:36, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:15:44 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... Even when you have unit tests (which you should), there are still plenty of errors not caught by that. However, automatically running unit tests on all code to be committed, *before* it is

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:15:44 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > Even when you have unit tests (which you should), there are still plenty > of errors not caught by that. However, automatically running unit tests > on all code to be committed, *before* it is committed, is also very > valuable.

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 17:20, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:20:39 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... 40. And you can abbreviate as far as they stay unambiguous. And it's still not anything you would want to type at all. Yes, but. There are lots of ways to reference commits, like 'two

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:20:39 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > >40. And you can abbreviate as far as they stay unambiguous. > > And it's still not anything you would want to type at all. Yes, but. There are lots of ways to reference commits, like 'two before the current commit on this

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 17:07, Sad Clouds wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:32:32 -0400 g...@duzan.org wrote: On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote: On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario where you do have a central

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:32:32 -0400 g...@duzan.org wrote: > > On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote: > >> On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >>> I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario > >>> where you do > >>> have a central repository that holds

Re: cvs better than git?

> On Jun 21, 2020, at 10:32 AM, g...@duzan.org wrote: > >  >> >>> On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote: >>> On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario where you do have a central repository that

Re: cvs better than git?

> On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote: >> On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario where >>> you do >>> have a central repository that holds the actual source of truth, and >>> where >>> you want to review and

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote: On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario where you do have a central repository that holds the actual source of truth, and where you want to review and approve anything that

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario where you do > have a central repository that holds the actual source of truth, and where > you want to review and approve anything that gets committed. Let me point you

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 14:27, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:07:00 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... simple operations, and yet I waste a day or two on git instead of just getting work done. For me a clear sign that the tool is wrong. 'one or two days' has a bit of a smell to it. It is

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:07:00 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > simple operations, and yet I waste a day or two on git instead of just > getting work done. For me a clear sign that the tool is wrong. 'one or two days' has a bit of a smell to it. ... > obviously not meant for people to use on

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-21 10:57, Andreas Krey wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:03:54 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... Except when git refuses to do that, which I have had happen to me several times. git stash refuses (I can't even remember the error message right now, but something weird). I can't think

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 11:05:51 +0200 Andreas Krey wrote: > But I take objection at the 'seems'. You're arguing > that some - few - projects are too big for git, and > hence everybody should stay away from is. Even though > MS implemented VFS exactly to be able *use* git. > Absolutely not. There

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:52:16 +, Sad Clouds wrote: ... > Because let's face it, breaking up codebase into gazillions of smaller > repos is daft and not very user friendly. Neither is throwing unrelated things into a single repo. It's not easy to decide where to draw the line - what you do

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:03:54 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > Except when git refuses to do that, which I have had happen to me > several times. git stash refuses (I can't even remember the error > message right now, but something weird). I can't think of any nonobvious (like being in a

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:09 PM Gua Chung Lim wrote: > > * Riccardo Mottola wrote: > > Mercurial? no go: python, please not. Just for this reason, maybe it would > > be perfect if written in equivalent C/C++! And please, don't cite me > > "rust"... even worse. Core things should be written with

Re: cvs better than git?

* Riccardo Mottola wrote: > Mercurial? no go: python, please not. Just for this reason, maybe it would > be perfect if written in equivalent C/C++! And please, don't cite me > "rust"... even worse. Core things should be written with core tools. > > Maybe some sort of "anonymous checkout" of

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:06:26 +0200 Andreas Krey wrote: > > However, a local repo has a big advantage: the possibility to > > quickly determine the status. > > ...or do logs, diffs, commits, checkouts, merges... Microsoft developed "VFS for Git" in order to scale it for large repos. Because

Re: cvs better than git?

Hi, On 6/17/20 10:48 PM, Sad Clouds wrote: Over the years, I worked on different projects and even though I work for the same company, we keep switching from one VCS to another. First we used Subversion, which was OK. it is not perfect, it has bugs, but it is "ok", exactly... git has some

Re: cvs better than git?

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:18:17 +, Riccardo Mottola wrote: ... > Local repositories are a mess.. Don't you hate that if you have a set of > local changes you cannot just "git pulL" without doing a commit for a > merge? 'git stash; git pull; git stash pop' (with a usabiliby quirk when there are

Re: cvs better than git?

Hi! On 6/17/20 1:27 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: I know I'm in a very small minority here, but personally I hate git. I sortof suspect I will not like hg either, and when the switch happens, it might just mean I'll stop using NetBSD. The whole idea of local repositories and then trying to

dealing with rewriting of history in Git repos (was: cvs better than git?)

At Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:56:50 +1000, Paul Ripke wrote: Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > I've tripped over this, too. I use git specifically for speed, having > just spinning rust and no ssd means other VCS are atrociously slow. > I got annoyed enough that I figured a clean way

Re: don't bother to use NetBSD Git repos for anything but testing (was: cvs better than git?)

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:24, Greg A. Woods wrote: > At Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:00:50 -0400, Andrew Cagney > wrote: > Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 23:23, Mayuresh wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:44PM +053

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 23:23, Mayuresh <[1]mayur...@acm.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:44PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: >> > For pkgsrc I prefer the git mirror, as I don't have to push >anything >>

don't bother to use NetBSD Git repos for anything but testing (was: cvs better than git?)

> There's really no point to actually trying to use the Git repos for > anything except infrequent testing, and possibly no point to using the > Hg repos either, until the conversion is 100% frozen with no possibility > of any new change ever being introduced to the original CVS repo again.

don't bother to use NetBSD Git repos for anything but testing (was: cvs better than git?)

At Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:00:50 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 23:23, Mayuresh wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:44PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: > > > For pkgsrc I prefer the git mirror, as I don't have to

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >notice how the checksum for the second commit - an event that happened in >1992 - changed. That shouldn't happen, I suspect something unstable about >the process. >Very annoying. Thanks for the insights. In the

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 23:23, Mayuresh wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:44PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: > > For pkgsrc I prefer the git mirror, as I don't have to push anything > > anyway and a few hours of latency doesn't matter to me. > > Don't know whether it's relevant to say on this

Re: painting the bikeshed in transparent colors (Re: cvs better than git?)

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 08:10, Nikita Gillmann wrote: > > Sorry, what's the point of this continued thread? > > Talking about how X is (faster, smaller, better, whatever) than Y is all > I see except for some initial > replies to a question. > > Does the Internet not have enough X vs Y discussion

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:15:15 +, Sad Clouds wrote: ... > Search "read only branches" for subversion and it'll give you some > ideas. Never done this myself, so no idea how well it works, but from > what I've read, it is relatively simple. Been there, done that. Turns out that it is indeed

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 07:54:30 +0200 Andreas Krey wrote: > E.g. the answer to 'how do I make tags in svn immutable by default'[1] > is surprisingly long and intricate - so much that nobody ever fully > answered that to me. Search "read only branches" for subversion and it'll give you some ideas.

Re: painting the bikeshed in transparent colors (Re: cvs better than git?)

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:09:50 +0200 Nikita Gillmann wrote: > Sorry, what's the point of this continued thread? Actually I'm always interested in why X is better than Y, so I can make my own decisions, instead of following some predetermined inevitability (e.g. Git has won period, just accept it

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:13:47 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > But you are hardly going to convince anyone that git is > good by pointing out problems in other systems. Yes. But the part that is weird for me is that nobody actually even bothers to explain how it gis 'a waste of time'. When we

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-18 07:54, Andreas Krey wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 01:26:14 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... For me, I have no problem at all understanding what CVS or SVN does. I do understand them as well - it's just that I can't understand the claims that git is uniquely hard to understand.

painting the bikeshed in transparent colors (Re: cvs better than git?)

Sorry, what's the point of this continued thread? Talking about how X is (faster, smaller, better, whatever) than Y is all I see except for some initial replies to a question. Does the Internet not have enough X vs Y discussion on version control that you feel the need to contribute to it, or

Re: cvs better than git?

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 01:26:14 +, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... > For me, I have no problem at all understanding what CVS or SVN does. I do understand them as well - it's just that I can't understand the claims that git is uniquely hard to understand. It's just that svn will bite you later, and

Checking out src with Mercurial (was: cvs better than git?)

Good Morning all, Last night I took a try and wanted to clone the src Mercurial repository. Shortly before putting the children to bed I issued the following command: mpeterma@x220Mk2$ hg clone https://anonhg.NetBSD.org/src Zielverzeichnis: src The actual transfer of the change sets via the

Re: cvs better than git?

Maybe use http://gameoftrees.org/ and/or https://github.com/vlang/gitly On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 9:25 am Mayuresh wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:11:04AM -0700, Michael Cheponis wrote: > Perhaps, if there were a commitment to stick with gitless, the confusion > and pain that git sometimes

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:11:04AM -0700, Michael Cheponis wrote: > Perhaps, if there were a commitment to stick with gitless, the confusion > and pain that git sometimes creates could be eliminated. Thanks for the pointers. I think as a first step we may like to have gitless in pkgsrc so that

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:42:44PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: > For pkgsrc I prefer the git mirror, as I don't have to push anything > anyway and a few hours of latency doesn't matter to me. Don't know whether it's relevant to say on this thread. May be it is. When I use pkgsrc git mirror, after

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-18 00:06, Andreas Krey wrote: On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:17 +, Jeffrey Walton wrote: ... All those upvotes DO NOT indicate a good question. They indicate a broken design. They indicate a unixy design - it is *much* more simple and especially open than, say, subversion. Even

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:17 +, Jeffrey Walton wrote: ... > All those upvotes DO NOT indicate a good question. They indicate a > broken design. They indicate a unixy design - it is *much* more simple and especially open than, say, subversion. > Even the simplest of tasks are difficult to

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:17 -0400 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > My position is, avoid Git if possible. It is a time sink that takes > time away from real work. Ignore the Fan Boi's when they ask for Git. > The request often shows nativity or lack of experience with the tool. > > Jeff Over the

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:56 PM Michael Cheponis wrote: > > Where I work, we are forced into using git. So, I've made peace using it. > Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's glitter on ...something. But there it is. And I > personally use gitless, and find it's a clear model that works. > ... > > If

Re: cvs better than git?

Where I work, we are forced into using git. So, I've made peace using it. Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's glitter on ...something. But there it is. And I personally use gitless, and find it's a clear model that works. BSD is important partly because it is NOT part of the linux monoculture. I

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:11:04 -0700 Michael Cheponis wrote: > If you want a thirty-minutes summary presentation, watch "What’s > Wrong With Git?" from Git Merge 2017 > . > > The end result of this work is Gitless, a simple version control > system

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:11:04 -0700 Michael Cheponis wrote: > 1) As much as folks (like me, Johnny) don't like it: git is THE most > widely-used rcs in the world, by far; I consider it just a kind of > annotated tar file. This argument doesn't move me at all. Linux is the most widely used

Re: cvs better than git?

Two points: 1) As much as folks (like me, Johnny) don't like it: git is THE most widely-used rcs in the world, by far; I consider it just a kind of annotated tar file. 2) git complexity (and user confusion) comes about due to the lack of conceptual integrity of the design / command structure.

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:58 PM IST, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2020-06-17 14:24, Mayuresh wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> I could go on about my objects, and the possible risks and issues, but I > >> think if this rant isn't enough to

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > I mean, if we would be having the primary repository our self, and just have > them be a mirror. Just a simple way of adding resources? Is the load of > people checking the code out that big? How much can we save there then? Or >

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 14:24, Mayuresh wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: I could go on about my objects, and the possible risks and issues, but I think if this rant isn't enough to start you thinking, I doubt any more text from me will change anything. Risk

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > I could go on about my objects, and the possible risks and issues, but I > think if this rant isn't enough to start you thinking, I doubt any more text > from me will change anything. Risk management is important. Given we do

Re: cvs better than git?

Hello, Am 17.06.2020 um 14:07 schrieb Johnny Billquist: My point is that you don't want to expose yourself to the risk. It's not about them not being able to take the code and do what they want. But how would you deal with, if all the code repository is outsourced, and they suddenly decide to

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 13:45, Mayuresh wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:36:33PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: Anyone who thinks something else is simply deluding themselves. Obviously the hosts do whatever they do, and I agree it's no free lunch. But they [can] do what they do even if they don't

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:36:33PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Anyone who thinks something else is simply deluding themselves. Obviously the hosts do whatever they do, and I agree it's no free lunch. But they [can] do what they do even if they don't host us as the code is open source anyway.

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:07 PM IST, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2020-06-17 13:35, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > there are _over_ 2 million organizations hosting their repositories at > > github. > > microsoft just can't expect to get away with being fickle. you understand > > what i

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:06 PM IST, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > > > reasons! i am thinking along the lines of "hg" being more modern that > > 'cvs', but _is_not_ "git". > > but then again, _wip_ does use "git", so what's the problem with

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 13:35, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: there are _over_ 2 million organizations hosting their repositories at github. microsoft just can't expect to get away with being fickle. you understand what i mean? I understand what you mean. I don't understand how you can believe it, though.

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: reasons! i am thinking along the lines of "hg" being more modern that 'cvs', but _is_not_ "git". but then again, _wip_ does use "git", so what's the problem with using "git" across the board? for a project which is as financially constrained as

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:57 PM IST, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote: > >>> Will downstream projects such as

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote: Will downstream projects such as pkgsrc and pkgsrc-wip also adopt Mercurial and use them as their official SCM? That

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:13:21PM +0200, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > that's the primary reason why i stated that "something does smell fishy" > about the core motives behind netbsd not being moved to github. Well, the mirrors such as of pkgsrc are on github. Own infra and github mirror vs github

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:33 PM IST, Matthias Petermann wrote: > Hello, > > Am 17.06.2020 um 12:37 schrieb mayur...@kathe.in: > > > > > reasons! i am thinking along the lines of "hg" being more modern that > > 'cvs', but _is_not_ "git". > > but then again, _wip_ does use "git", so what's

Re: cvs better than git?

Hello, Am 17.06.2020 um 12:37 schrieb mayur...@kathe.in: reasons! i am thinking along the lines of "hg" being more modern that 'cvs', but _is_not_ "git". but then again, _wip_ does use "git", so what's the problem with using "git" across the board? for a project which is as financially

Re: cvs better than git?

No. Neither Python nor mercurial/hg will be included in base. Jaromir Le mer. 17 juin 2020 à 12:56, Vitaly Shevtsov a écrit : > > If NetBSD ever switchs to hg, does it mean that python will be > included in base image because hg is written in Python? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:38 PM

Re: cvs better than git?

If NetBSD ever switchs to hg, does it mean that python will be included in base image because hg is written in Python? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:38 PM mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote: > > Will downstream projects such as pkgsrc and pkgsrc-wip also adopt > > Mercurial and use them as their official SCM? That would be great. > > wip adopted git after a

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote: > Will downstream projects such as pkgsrc and pkgsrc-wip also adopt > Mercurial and use them as their official SCM? That would be great. wip adopted git after a lot of deliberation.. Hope we don't change it again... wip is the

Re: cvs better than git?

Hello together, I understand that migrating the source code of a project as big as NetBSD is a challenge that doesn't happen every day. And I am sure that the people who are dealing with it would have done it long ago if it were easy. I also want to believe that the choice of the next SCM

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 02:40 PM IST, Nikita Gillmann wrote: > > On 2020-06-17 10:55, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 02:16 PM IST, Martin Husemann > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:40:36AM +0200, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > >>> i am not an expert at

Re: cvs better than git?

On 2020-06-17 10:55, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 02:16 PM IST, Martin Husemann > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:40:36AM +0200, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: >>> i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself. >>> would like to

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 02:16 PM IST, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:40:36AM +0200, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself. > > would like to understand why 'cvs' is preferred over "git" under netbsd. > >

Re: cvs better than git?

Please read the archives of the tech-repository list. This has been discussed to death. mayur...@kathe.in schrieb am Mi., 17. Juni 2020, 10:40: > i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself. > would like to understand why 'cvs' is preferred over "git" under

Re: cvs better than git?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:40:36AM +0200, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself. > would like to understand why 'cvs' is preferred over "git" under netbsd. It is not prefered. Just moving from one system to another is an enormous

cvs better than git?

i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself. would like to understand why 'cvs' is preferred over "git" under netbsd.