[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Switching from CVS to GIT

From: Christopher Faylor
Subject: Re: Switching from CVS to GIT
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:53:39 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:22:56PM +0200, Ram??n Garc??a wrote:
>In my opinion, distributed control version systems like GIT or
>Mercurial are the way to go in the long term.  In Sun all the
>repositories are (or are being migrated to) Mercurial.
>There is only one serious limitation with GIT: each developer must have
>a complete repository, that is, it is not posible to work with a
>subdirectory.  But this is not an issue for projects like GNU Make.
>I have no experience with GIT on Windows, but there is a page about it
>in the GIT Wiki:

That page seems to imply either MSys or Cygwin.  Neither of those is a
pure windows-only solution.  I can see why people wouldn't want to
install cygwin + perl + bash + tk + whatever just to do source control.

I was reading the git mailing list for a while and one person was
rabidly anti-cygwin - enough for me to eventually decide it wasn't worth
getting a jolt of adrenaline one morning a week.  I thought this person
was actively working on a mingw port and, attitude aside, he seemed very
competent.  If the direction of the port was to use *MSYS* to do some
of the heavy lifting then that's just too funny.

Someone mentioned mercurial already.  There is YA "enthusiastic" camp of
people who think it is superior to git.  The author made a pretty
compelling case in a presentation I saw at a past OLS.  I'm wondering if
it is somewhat lighter weight in terms of number of packages that need
to be installed.  I don't know if Paul would consider this or not.  It
means convincing savannah sysadmins that this is a good idea, I guess.

I could sponsor the hosting of GNU make at, which has
mercurial installed, but I guess that's a sort of radical step.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]