Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone server

[Daniel Carrera]

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> I don't know.  Someone suggested that the space you get might be
> mounted noexec (so preventing you from running the binary).  Depends
> on the provider, I imagine, and I've no idea what's typical.

In truth, I don't know either.

> > Can you recommend such a system? What I find attractive about Mtn,
> > besides being easy to use, is the digital signatures.
>
> I think the three major ones (bzr, git, mercurial) all support using
> dumb servers.  None of them (as far as I know) support signatures in
> quite the pervasive way that monotone does.  All support signing some
> things (signing tags, typically).

Yeah, I was just reading up on those three (I already know Darcs and it 
doesn't use signatures). A lot of people say that Git is complicated and 
poorly documented, so I'm ignoring Git. Mercurial and Bzr both look easy 
to use, but like you say, they don't seem to have digital sigs, or the 
over-all security of Monotone.


> Ease of use probably varies according to taste.  Viewed from a
> distance they're all (disappointingly) equivalent, storing DAGs of
> snapshots.

DAG?


> They differ more in the details, and which details matter probably
> varies.

Yeah. Ex: Linus cares a lot about quickly merging large trees, Mozilla 
cares about decent performance on Win32 (so they chose Mercurial), etc. 
For me, desirable features include ease of use, security and being able 
to push changes to a live web host. Mercurial seems to have the 'push' part:

hg push ssh://address@hidden/public_html/main

So, if indeed I can't run Monotone on the server, I'll have to balance 
out Monotone's signatures against Mercurial's push. I'm not sure what 
I'd pick, but I think I'd lean toward the push (Mercurial).


> I work in an environment where we do code review (for every
> change), so git's idiosyncratic (and awkwardly named) index, and
> ability to revise commits (and ultimately automatically discard older
> versions) is natural and valuable: it provides better support for the
> workflow we used with CVS (preparing patches in a checkout, emailing
> them out, then often revising them before integration).

Interesting. I didn't know about that about Git. As a sole developer 
that feature doesn't apply to me. But it's interesting.

Do you use Monotone anywhere? I ask because you are, after all, in a 
Monotone mailing list.

Cheers,
Daniel.