Any objections on switching to git?

I have recently been considering using git instead of arch
to manage GNU lightning and GNU Smalltalk.  I even
contributed
some patches to make it easier to use for projects with
long-term
"work on the side".

The Smalltalk archive seems to be "corrupted" now,
according to
arch, and this "feature" has prompted me to poll
about a switch.


Benefits include:

1) extremely fast.  I'm pretty fed up of the cost of arch's
revision library slowness.  And sometimes I must admit I've
been sloppy on committing separate changesets only to avoid
that slowness.

2) more actively maintained.  Bzr is not supported yet at
Savannah and does not include retrocompatibility with arch
anyway, so why bother looking at it.

3) widely deployed.  Used by Xorg and Wine among others.

4) fast development pace.  1.5.0 had a lot of usability
improvements and I contributed some more to 1.5.1.

5) good conversion from existing arch repositories.  I also
contributed some improvements here in the last month, and
these are already in released versions.  So the conversion
from arch to git will be good quality.


Drawbacks include:

1) one new tool to learn for users.  I think that git is
to arch, as svn was to cvs, so it would be worthwhile
anyway
to learn it.  I'll still provide the CVS archive anyway.

I put together this small guide (for not-yet-released
1.5.1):

   "cvs checkout":
   tla get bonzinignu.org--2004b/smalltalk--devo--2.2 PATH
   --> git clone --depth=100 MY-URL PATH

   work:
   tla commit
   --> git-commit -a

   create long-lived branch off remote archive:
   tla register-archive MY-URL
   tla get bonzinignu.org--2004b/smalltalk--devo--2.2 PATH
   cd PATH
   tla branch smalltalk--BRANCHNAME--0
   --> mkdir PATH && cd PATH
       git-init
       git-remote add -f upstream MY-URL  
       git-checkout --track -b BRANCHNAME upstream/master

   merge upstream into branch:
   tla star-merge bonzinignu.org--2004b/smalltalk--devo--2.2
   --> git-pull

   merge local branch into another branch:
   tla star-merge bonzinignu.org--2004b/smalltalk--coolfeature--2.3
   --> git-pull . mybranch:destbranch

   register archive to cherry pick from:
   tla register-archive THEIR-URL
   --> git-remote add -f them THEIR-URL  

   cherry pick from branch:
   tla replay bonzinignu.org--2004b/smalltalk--coolfeature--2.3--patch-NNN

   --> git-fetch them
       git-cherry-pick <sha1 of commit to pick>

and it does not seem to be *that much* harder.

2) Write your own here.


I plan to wait for a couple of days for objections.

Paolo


_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalkgnu.org

http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Hello Paolo,

Disclaimer: I never used a lot neither contributed to GST so
take this
email with usual grain of salt.

2007/3/20, Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzinilu.unisi.ch>:
> 2) Write your own here.

GIT is Linux specific, as far as I know there is no Windows
port. Its
interface seems to me pretty complicated.

For my own project, I have switched from Arch to Mercurial
(http://www.selenic.
com/mercurial/). Several big projects are using
Mercurial, like OpenSolaris or Xen. Apparently you have the
same
features as GIT, especially bisect and visualisation tools.
Mercurial
is much like GIT to me, but more portable and simpler to
use. YMMV.

Best wishes,
david


_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalkgnu.org

http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

> GIT is Linux specific, as far as I know there is no
Windows port.

There is http://repo.or.cz/w
/git/mingw.git though I've not tried it.
It surely works great on Mac OS X and *BSD.

> For my own project, I have switched from Arch to
Mercurial
> (http://www.selenic.
com/mercurial/). Several big projects are using
> Mercurial, like OpenSolaris or Xen. Apparently you have
the same
> features as GIT, especially bisect and visualisation
tools. Mercurial
> is much like GIT to me, but more portable and simpler
to use. YMMV.

As for portability, I have no problems believing you. As
for
simplicity, I think that mileages vary a lot.  I had to
write patches
to fit my needs indeed, and it's been pretty painful.    But
I'm
quite satisfied now that my itches have been scratched.

Anyway, this is not going to happen today or tomorrow since
fixing the "corrupt archive" was just a matter of
deleting the
revision library and merging from my master archive
(bonzinignu.org--2004b).
Still, I'm looking for opinions.

Paolo


_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalkgnu.org

http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

>> I have recently been considering using git instead
of arch
>> to manage GNU lightning and GNU Smalltalk.
> 
> FWIW, I'm also fed up with Arch's slowness.  However,
I'm afraid I'd
> miss first-class renames, tagging methods, and more
importantly
> inventory and configs.

Luckily, I rarely rename and I never used configs.  I would
also miss
a little tagging methods and especially the inventory, but
that's
life. :-(

Paolo


_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalkgnu.org

http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk