Re: Distributed SCM in Gnome (Was: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?))

[Germán Poó Caamaño <gpoo ubiobio cl>]

On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 21:44 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 01:10 +0200, Ali Sabil wrote:
> > > > I am also afraid that we might be just becoming nothing more but "geek
> > > > fashion" addicts trying to follow the latest RCS tendency without
> > > > really building solid and constructive arguments !
> > >
> > > I was going to be offended, but you warned :).  Now that most probably
> > > means that you don't hack on the more crowded projects that much...
> > > Many Gtk+ developers for example could not have been as productive as
> > > they are right now if it wasn't for git-svn.  And that's only a
> > > half-arsed solution.
> > >
> > 
> > Yeah, I am not against DRCS at all, in fact I cannot stand using svn
> > or any CRCS, what I was pointing out is that basically everyone is
> > calling for using git while superior alternatives to git exists out
> > there. I am not a user of Mercurial for example, but I think it is the
> > DRCS out there that gives a very good balance between ease of use,
> > speed and functionalities. Actually I use bzr daily, but I cannot
> > claim that bzr is very fast (the upcomming 0.92 is supposed to be
> > quite fast).
> > 
> > I think that both bzr and mercurial give a better balance than git,
> > which is indeed very fast on posix systems, but ad Ross said a while
> > ago : "Git is a good core of a yet to be written revision control
> > system". I think that Git is to revision control system, what
> > Autotools is to build systems.
> > 
> > I am just afraid that everyone is calling for using Git, without even
> > considering the existing and less hyped alternatives.
> > 
> > And again don't get offended by what I say ;) I am just calling for a
> > fair comparison of the tools, instead of a biased one :)
> 
> Ok, lets be fair:  most people who care about hacking on GNOME already
> know git, why should other options be selected?  Seriously, kernel is
> using it, freedesktop.org is using it, and KDE is considering it.  Git
> is one of those ones you need to learn at some point anyway.  Bazaar on
> the other hand from what I see is a Ubuntu/Canonical focus and
> Mercurial's biggest deployment, yet to be finished, will be Mozilla.
> I've seen many Mozilla hackers regret that they are not moving to git.

IMVHO, I think OpenSolaris is the biggest deployment, however, not the
only one. There are also, other projects that have Mercurial
repositories synced with the main ones, such as Linux Kernel, GCC,
FreeBSD. 

In fact, I also keep a Mercurial repository for Postgresql
(personal use).

> Was going to add these to the wiki page, feel free to do:
> 
>   - Keith Packard did a fairly extensive research of which DSCM system
> to use for xorg and other fd.o projects, from a storage robustness /
> performance point of view, and he wrote this excellent piece:
> 
>   http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html

Keith Packard made some mistakes about Mercurial.  To have a complete
idea, please read also:

http://blog.rvburke.com/2006/12/14/repository-formats-matter-a-lot-in-mercurial/
http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2006-November/011678.html

I also suggest read the posts coming from Ted Tso in the thread
'Mercurial versus git' in Mercurial's list.
http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2007-January/012039.html
http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2007-March/012650.html

And to be fair, please also read:
http://tytso.livejournal.com/29467.html

-- 
Germ�Po�ama�oncepci� Chile