Moving to GIT?
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi!
We will soon have to change our bug trackers. What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? Some people have already cloned Roassal on github: https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q=Roassal We cannot ignore this… Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
As a sidenote, considering you make quite a heavy use of GoogleCode issue tracker, maybe the Bitbucket one (based on JIRA) would fit you better than the GitHub one. Peter On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
Hi,
You mean instead of SmalltalkHub? Are the tools like Monticello adapted to GIT? I don’t think so. And by listening the ones that already moved to GIT, it seems very complex. So without a great interface that abstracts all the complex details of GIT, I am not in favor of moving to GIT. Anne Le 7 avr. 2015 à 16:53, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> a écrit :
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
what kind of advantages does bitbucket offer over github on issue reporting ? I am no contributor to Moose myself so I can't offer an informed opinion on this choice. But I love working on github and I think the whole pull request design is just brilliant with also the ability to comment and reply on commits and pull request and even attach issue reports to commits and pull requests. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Anne Etien
IMHO using git in Pharo is still quite painful.
Uko
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
Could be… It would be nice that we all have a clear position on this
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Anne Etien
As far as I can see, this is not very complex. Monticello simply has to point to a folder on your local hard disk. You then need to do git push and git pull to update your local copy.
Pretty much the same when we are writing a paper :-) Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
Le 07/04/2015 16:53, Alexandre Bergel a écrit :
> Hi! > > We will soon have to change our bug trackers. > What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? > > Some people have already cloned Roassal on github: > https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q=Roassal > <http://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Roassal> > We cannot ignore this… Hey, I'm not even the first one cloning Roassal on github :) Thierry > > Alexandre > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Uko2
Oh… You have an important experience. Why this? What are the troubles you are facing?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:11 PM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as pull requests go, on top of what GitHub provides, Bitbucket also allows you to specify reviewers and "approve" system. But about issues - GitHub provides you some labeling system but it has NO structure whatsoever. Bitbucket on the other hand has many features like type (new, resolved, on hold, invalid, ...), priority, status, and even custom attributes, and more. Doing this with GitHub label is extremely heavy-handed. It also comes down to what kind of management you require. If you are ok with ad-hoc, then GitHub is perfect (since you don't need to deal with all the stuff mentioned above), but when you need proper organization, I cannot imagine doing it with just labels. So, just sharing my 2¢. Peter _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Anne Etien
Le 07/04/2015 17:08, Anne Etien a écrit :
> Hi, > > You mean instead of SmalltalkHub? > > Are the tools like Monticello adapted to GIT? I don’t think so. > And by listening the ones that already moved to GIT, it seems very complex. Well, I'll let you judge of the complexity. For Serge effort in the Datathon in Paris/Montreuil, I wanted to merge Sven improvements on Open Street Map in Roassal to Alexandre latest Roassal2. Sven did it during PharoDays, so, when was that? Two months ago? So I fired up Monticello, opened the Smalltalkhub repository, and tried merging Roassal2-AlexandreBergel.812 and Roassal2-SvenVanCaenberghe.720. Should have been easy, no? Sven only modified two or three methods, added a class, that's all. Result: 282 conflicts... Spread over all of Roassal2, touching almost all classes :( You couldn't even find the true modifications of Sven in all that mess. So what I did is switch to git. Copy via gitfiletree the common ancestor of Roassal2 (.718), made a branch Sven-OSM and copied there Sven's .719 and .720 versions, moved back to master and copied there the latest Roassal2 (.812), and: git merge Sven-OSM > 1 conflict. Without counting the fact that git is a lot faster going through Roassal code than Monticello is. > So without a great interface that abstracts all the complex details of > GIT, I am not in favor of moving to GIT. You have a point. Now, after looking at the way some (many) of the projects are using Monticello, Metacello (Configurations), I'm not sure waiting for that GUI is a wise decision. Thierry > Anne > Le 7 avr. 2015 à 16:53, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit : > >> Hi! >> >> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? >> >> Some people have already cloned Roassal on github: >> https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q=Roassal >> <http://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Roassal> >> We cannot ignore this… >> >> Alexandre >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu <http://www.bergel.eu/> >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
There certainly are big issues like a LOT of crashing on Windows, and it does feel a bit worse experience compared to native git, but at least for me personally (on linux) I am much happier with it than with SmalltalkHub; doing large-ish merge conflicts is so much more convenient. But I kind of thought that Moose was fine with their setup (considering they've done great things with it), so I am curious what are their (main) motivations to move to GIT. Peter _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel
wrote:
We will soon have to change our bug trackers. I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Thierry Goubier
Just out of curiosity, did anyone use STIG/FileTree yet?
Best, Steffen Am .04.2015, 17:34 Uhr, schrieb Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]>: > Le 07/04/2015 17:08, Anne Etien a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> You mean instead of SmalltalkHub? >> >> Are the tools like Monticello adapted to GIT? I don’t think so. >> And by listening the ones that already moved to GIT, it seems very >> complex. > > Well, I'll let you judge of the complexity. > > For Serge effort in the Datathon in Paris/Montreuil, I wanted to merge > Sven improvements on Open Street Map in Roassal to Alexandre latest > Roassal2. > > Sven did it during PharoDays, so, when was that? Two months ago? > > So I fired up Monticello, opened the Smalltalkhub repository, and tried > merging Roassal2-AlexandreBergel.812 and Roassal2-SvenVanCaenberghe.720. > > Should have been easy, no? Sven only modified two or three methods, > added a class, that's all. > > Result: 282 conflicts... Spread over all of Roassal2, touching almost > all classes :( You couldn't even find the true modifications of Sven in > all that mess. > > So what I did is switch to git. Copy via gitfiletree the common ancestor > of Roassal2 (.718), made a branch Sven-OSM and copied there Sven's .719 > and .720 versions, moved back to master and copied there the latest > Roassal2 (.812), and: > > git merge Sven-OSM > > > 1 conflict. > > Without counting the fact that git is a lot faster going through Roassal > code than Monticello is. > >> So without a great interface that abstracts all the complex details of >> GIT, I am not in favor of moving to GIT. > > You have a point. > > Now, after looking at the way some (many) of the projects are using > Monticello, Metacello (Configurations), I'm not sure waiting for that > GUI is a wise decision. > > Thierry > >> Anne >> Le 7 avr. 2015 à 16:53, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi Steffen,
Le 07/04/2015 17:45, Steffen Märcker a écrit : > Just out of curiosity, did anyone use STIG/FileTree yet? FileTree has an issue for supporting STIG (https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree/issues/144). As soon as it's in, I'll add that to GitFileTree. I want to benefit from the refactoring which will be done for that :) Thierry > > Best, Steffen > > Am .04.2015, 17:34 Uhr, schrieb Thierry Goubier > <[hidden email]>: > >> Le 07/04/2015 17:08, Anne Etien a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> You mean instead of SmalltalkHub? >>> >>> Are the tools like Monticello adapted to GIT? I don’t think so. >>> And by listening the ones that already moved to GIT, it seems very >>> complex. >> >> Well, I'll let you judge of the complexity. >> >> For Serge effort in the Datathon in Paris/Montreuil, I wanted to merge >> Sven improvements on Open Street Map in Roassal to Alexandre latest >> Roassal2. >> >> Sven did it during PharoDays, so, when was that? Two months ago? >> >> So I fired up Monticello, opened the Smalltalkhub repository, and >> tried merging Roassal2-AlexandreBergel.812 and >> Roassal2-SvenVanCaenberghe.720. >> >> Should have been easy, no? Sven only modified two or three methods, >> added a class, that's all. >> >> Result: 282 conflicts... Spread over all of Roassal2, touching almost >> all classes :( You couldn't even find the true modifications of Sven >> in all that mess. >> >> So what I did is switch to git. Copy via gitfiletree the common >> ancestor of Roassal2 (.718), made a branch Sven-OSM and copied there >> Sven's .719 and .720 versions, moved back to master and copied there >> the latest Roassal2 (.812), and: >> >> git merge Sven-OSM >> >> > 1 conflict. >> >> Without counting the fact that git is a lot faster going through >> Roassal code than Monticello is. >> >>> So without a great interface that abstracts all the complex details of >>> GIT, I am not in favor of moving to GIT. >> >> You have a point. >> >> Now, after looking at the way some (many) of the projects are using >> Monticello, Metacello (Configurations), I'm not sure waiting for that >> GUI is a wise decision. >> >> Thierry >> >>> Anne >>> Le 7 avr. 2015 à 16:53, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit : >>> > <---Schnitt---> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
Yes I agree that Github offers more freedom on how one deals with an issue which can be a disadvantage if you want to force users to form a specific workflow on reporting issues. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Hi,
Please don't move source code to git, only bug tracker (or even try Bitbucket before or something else). I try to evade git as hell. Yep, I'm in a minority, but after trying git, svn, arch, bazaar, mercurial, trac and fossil I will keep the last one only (kind of a "GiHub in a box" on only 1.5 Mb self-contained simple to use and install binary). For the curious about Fossil at [1] you can find the workflow and at [2] some (biased) quotes about it versus git :-) (of course you could find this biased versus thing all the time for anything, but at least is a call to have a panoramic view before any choosing of a tool). [1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quotes.wiki One of the main reason that made git so popular was undoubtedly the Linux kernel community, but I don't understand why a tool that is suited for a thousand developers community and project should be forced into every development project and community. Its like a bazooka for killing mosquitoes with gratuitous complexity most of the times. I really like the integration, fine grained control and smoothness of Monticello in Pharo/Smalltalk for working with objects, not files. The only thing I'm missing is named and visual branches. But having a tool that has a cumbersome work flow, is difficult to install and all the time gets in your way is precisely the opposite of Monticello or any improvement we should be looking for on what we have now. Monticello (or fossil for that matter) is newbie friendly, Git is not. Please, only migrate to file based control system when it has the same smoothness of Monticello and hopefully with Git as an option, not before. Thanks, Offray El 07/04/15 a las 10:44, stephan escribió: > > > On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? > > I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to > text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely > integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) > Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that > in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even > able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. > > Stephan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
And talking about workflows compare the "cheat sheet" of Git[1] versus
the workflow of Fossil[2]. [1] http://www.ubuntu-mobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/79302966.png [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow Cheers, Offray El 07/04/15 a las 12:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas escribió: > Hi, > > Please don't move source code to git, only bug tracker (or even try > Bitbucket before or something else). > > I try to evade git as hell. Yep, I'm in a minority, but after trying > git, svn, arch, bazaar, mercurial, trac and fossil I will keep the last > one only (kind of a "GiHub in a box" on only 1.5 Mb self-contained > simple to use and install binary). For the curious about Fossil at [1] > you can find the workflow and at [2] some (biased) quotes about it > versus git :-) (of course you could find this biased versus thing all > the time for anything, but at least is a call to have a panoramic view > before any choosing of a tool). > > [1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow > [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quotes.wiki > > One of the main reason that made git so popular was undoubtedly the > Linux kernel community, but I don't understand why a tool that is suited > for a thousand developers community and project should be forced into > every development project and community. Its like a bazooka for killing > mosquitoes with gratuitous complexity most of the times. > > I really like the integration, fine grained control and smoothness of > Monticello in Pharo/Smalltalk for working with objects, not files. The > only thing I'm missing is named and visual branches. But having a tool > that has a cumbersome work flow, is difficult to install and all the > time gets in your way is precisely the opposite of Monticello or any > improvement we should be looking for on what we have now. Monticello (or > fossil for that matter) is newbie friendly, Git is not. > > Please, only migrate to file based control system when it has the same > smoothness of Monticello and hopefully with Git as an option, not before. > > > Thanks, > > Offray > > El 07/04/15 a las 10:44, stephan escribió: >> >> >> On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >>> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? >> >> I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to >> text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely >> integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) >> Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that >> in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even >> able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. >> >> Stephan >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi Offray,
more debate about which DVCS to use! Cool. Needed. In particular, we need a Slice-based workflow. Suggestions welcomed :) First counter argument: the simplicity of Monticello. Yes, me too, when I started with Pharo, I was attracted by the simplicity and the fact it is nicely integrated... I integrated GitFileTree inside Monticello / Metacello / Gofer to keep that. But, then I discovered how Monticello does certain things. Then I discovered how Monticello was written. Then I discovered how people are using it. Now I know that when Monticello works correctly, this is by accident or because we use it for very simple projects (*). It has so many ways of getting basic operations wrongly :(. It doesn't scale well to the size of Pharo, for sure. And it has an impact on how you maintain multiple targets for a Pharo project, adding complexity inside the code to cope with Monticello tooling deficiencies. Second counter argument: do we have the choice of DVCS? Yes, if we have the hosting linked with it. No, if we consider workplace requirements. In short, my workplace has SVN and git. Given that, I take git. Mind you, I'll have a look at Fossil too. Thierry Le 07/04/2015 20:12, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit : > And talking about workflows compare the "cheat sheet" of Git[1] versus > the workflow of Fossil[2]. > > [1] http://www.ubuntu-mobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/79302966.png > [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow > > Cheers, > > Offray > > El 07/04/15 a las 12:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas escribió: >> Hi, >> >> Please don't move source code to git, only bug tracker (or even try >> Bitbucket before or something else). >> >> I try to evade git as hell. Yep, I'm in a minority, but after trying >> git, svn, arch, bazaar, mercurial, trac and fossil I will keep the last >> one only (kind of a "GiHub in a box" on only 1.5 Mb self-contained >> simple to use and install binary). For the curious about Fossil at [1] >> you can find the workflow and at [2] some (biased) quotes about it >> versus git :-) (of course you could find this biased versus thing all >> the time for anything, but at least is a call to have a panoramic view >> before any choosing of a tool). >> >> [1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow >> [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quotes.wiki >> >> One of the main reason that made git so popular was undoubtedly the >> Linux kernel community, but I don't understand why a tool that is suited >> for a thousand developers community and project should be forced into >> every development project and community. Its like a bazooka for killing >> mosquitoes with gratuitous complexity most of the times. >> >> I really like the integration, fine grained control and smoothness of >> Monticello in Pharo/Smalltalk for working with objects, not files. The >> only thing I'm missing is named and visual branches. But having a tool >> that has a cumbersome work flow, is difficult to install and all the >> time gets in your way is precisely the opposite of Monticello or any >> improvement we should be looking for on what we have now. Monticello (or >> fossil for that matter) is newbie friendly, Git is not. >> >> Please, only migrate to file based control system when it has the same >> smoothness of Monticello and hopefully with Git as an option, not before. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Offray >> >> El 07/04/15 a las 10:44, stephan escribió: >>> >>> >>> On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>>> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >>>> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? >>> >>> I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to >>> text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely >>> integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) >>> Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that >>> in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even >>> able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. >>> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Offray
Hi Offray,
reading through Fossil... I think one could turn GitFileTree in a FossilFileTree in a matter of hours, at most days. If you want to work with Fossil, I would encourage you to explore this way. Thierry Le 07/04/2015 19:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas a écrit : > Hi, > > Please don't move source code to git, only bug tracker (or even try > Bitbucket before or something else). > > I try to evade git as hell. Yep, I'm in a minority, but after trying > git, svn, arch, bazaar, mercurial, trac and fossil I will keep the last > one only (kind of a "GiHub in a box" on only 1.5 Mb self-contained > simple to use and install binary). For the curious about Fossil at [1] > you can find the workflow and at [2] some (biased) quotes about it > versus git :-) (of course you could find this biased versus thing all > the time for anything, but at least is a call to have a panoramic view > before any choosing of a tool). > > [1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/concepts.wiki#workflow > [2] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quotes.wiki > > One of the main reason that made git so popular was undoubtedly the > Linux kernel community, but I don't understand why a tool that is suited > for a thousand developers community and project should be forced into > every development project and community. Its like a bazooka for killing > mosquitoes with gratuitous complexity most of the times. > > I really like the integration, fine grained control and smoothness of > Monticello in Pharo/Smalltalk for working with objects, not files. The > only thing I'm missing is named and visual branches. But having a tool > that has a cumbersome work flow, is difficult to install and all the > time gets in your way is precisely the opposite of Monticello or any > improvement we should be looking for on what we have now. Monticello (or > fossil for that matter) is newbie friendly, Git is not. > > Please, only migrate to file based control system when it has the same > smoothness of Monticello and hopefully with Git as an option, not before. > > > Thanks, > > Offray > > El 07/04/15 a las 10:44, stephan escribió: >> >> >> On 07-04-15 16:53, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> We will soon have to change our bug trackers. >>> What about taking this opportunity and moving to GIT? >> >> I very much like using git and github for doing small commits to >> text repositories like PFTE. I would love to have a nicely >> integrated workflow for source code too. The work by (a.o) >> Thierry makes me confident that we'll be able to achieve that >> in the not too far future. At the moment however, we are not even >> able to reliably find the git executable on all platforms. >> >> Stephan >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |