Russel Winder schrieb:
[...]
>> I placed Mercurial at 1, because it seems TortoiseBzr is no longer 
>> developed, but TortoiseHg still is. There are basic plugins for all 
>> IDEs, including Intellij, Eclipse and Netbeans. Mercurial and Bazaar 
>> work on all operating systems, because they are not written in a wild 
>> mix of C,bash, Perl and TCL/Tk. I dislike git mostly because of its huge 
>> ammount of command line arguments. In subversion you had what? checkout, 
>> commit, update, diff... maybe merge and copy. That's it. Do we really 
>> need more than that?
> 
> This statement about TortoiseBzr is not correct.

oh?

> Canonical spotted that
> development was stalled and have engaged Mark Hammond to pick things up
> and carry it to release, so there is paid help on the job now.  There is
> a release early, release often programme in place.

but it seems there are still no committs

> As will be pretty obvious from my previous emails, my preferred ordering
> would be Bazaar, Mercurial, Subversion, Git.

I played a little with git... and was not very pleased about its 
complexity... I had to spend over an hour to find out how to checkout a 
certain release that is not head. I will try Bazaar and Mercurial soon

>> I am usually having different directories for groovy, where each 
>> directory represents a certain branch. That menas atm I have a 1.5.x 
>> directory and a 1.6.x directory. If I take it right, then for git you 
>> have the whole repository in the top level directory, but the classic 
>> checkout is made only on a certain branch... meaning I would either have 
>> to symlink the .git directories or have two of them.... But having two 
>> of them... The initial checkout takes really a long time. Now, that 
>> might bea problem for all three systems...I would have to find a way to 
>> checkout not the whole thing, but only a certain part... in some cases 
>> this is just what I need.. and I don't wnat to waste several 100MB just 
>> to get 20of them in the end.
> 
> In Bazaar you would have a shared repository with the Trunk, 1.6.x and
> 1.5.x branches in it.  They then share changesets.  In Git you have a
> repository in which all the branches reside with sharing of all
> changesets.  What the best with Mercurial I am not sure just now.

I guess I simply have to try it.

>> Which leeds me to the workflow itself... How should that be? I know git 
>> supports almost any workflow, but what kind of workflow do bazaar and 
>> Mercurial support? I mean if none of them allows the workflow we want to 
>> have, then there is no reason to use them. But frankly I don't know 
>> about the workflow yet. I am only sure that having one main maintainer 
>> that has the only power of hte branch is most likely not going to work 
>> for us.... also I never understood how I can pull a different version 
>> from someone, if that someone doesn't host the version...
> 
> Git supports the "Linus managing Linux development" workflow.  OK so it
> can be coerced to others.  Bazaar and Mercurial are designed to be much
> more agile and adaptive.  Bazaar can in fact cover more different
> workflows than Git, as I think Mercurial can.

oh, well I got it false then? But now that you say it, I remember that too.

> I think the trick here is to specify the workflow you want and then fit
> the tool to the job, and in the process see if one of the tools rules
> itself out.  I suspect that this is not the case, that all three can be
> used with any of the workflows we want to put in place.
> 
> Associated with Bazaar is Bundle Buggy and Patch Queue Manager, these
> are ways of formalizing the acceptence of changesets into the mainline
> branch. They are lightweight, developed by the Bazaar developers to
> support Bazaar development.  I am sure Mercurial and Git have analogues.

probably, didn't find anything.

[...]
>> Even if we switch to a DCVS System, we most likely will still have a 
>> central repository in the end... or were are the other repositories 
>> comming from?
> 
> Anyone can have a branch, that is the whole point of DVCS.  But there
> will always be one that the community accept as being the official state
> of software.

well, yes, sure... ut where are these branches physically? I more or 
less came to this problem when hearing the google talk from Linus to 
advocate GIT. He is pulling from others.. If I understand this right, 
then there is some kind of remote repository and he is getting the 
actual version from it. If not, then it would be a simple patch send by 
for example email, or not? Bazaar seems not to work like this... at 
least with the tools from above. It seems that then you have the patches 
send to the mailing list and an automated tool will merge them. So there 
is no need to access a remote repository. Am I worng about this?

bye blackdrag

-- 
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org)
http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
http://www.g2one.com/