Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
  • Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:25:06 -0800

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Maurizio Boriani wrote:
> On 2005-11-03 07:02:25 +0100 Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> agree to Totally Free Distro :))
>
> also agree with z-rejected stuff
>
> > Switch our SCM to something(s) other than perforce for everything.
>
> I propose gnu arch[0] :)
> becouse:
>
> 0) every developer has his own revision history locally (this permit
> to work on
> previus revisions without network :) )
> 1) could be used for incremental grimoires and sorcery distribution.
> 2) It's totally free and under fsf copyright
> 3) could be used with or without a central repository.
> 4) it's your fried :))
>

Gnu/Arch has been officially unmaintained for several months.

Its more active fork bazaar is being phased out for a supposedly better
replacement bazaar-ng. There is also ArX which is a much older fork of
gnu/arch, its probably the best of the three IMO.

There are several other problems with gnu-arch (as well as bazaar)
for grimoire and sorcery work. However their model for distributed
development is the best I've seen so far. In their model the repository
tore is kept outsside the working trees in a seperate publishable
directory. You can create as many working treesof a given branch as
you want.

Nearly every other "distributed" scm (mercurial, cogito, fastcst,
bazaar-ng, darcs, etc.) all use the notion of "repository == branch ==
working-tree". That model doesnt work for us *at all*, it works for really
small projects, and for huge projects like the linux kernel where branches
have official maintainers whose job is mostly to pull in patches from
each other. We dont do that here. The in-between solution is a pqm
(patch-queue-manager, gets patches via email and applies them), which
is quite clunky IMO.

I've looked into nearly every free revision control system out there and
I can honestly say that not one of them meets all of our requirements,
and that even using the best fits require giving up certain things. If
they dont have repository == working tree brain damage, then either the
interface is lousy, or their merging sucks (we need good merging).

Im not going to run-down the list here, but I can provide feedback on
the issues with most any scm or evaluate ones I havent seen yet fairly
quickly since I've looked at so many.

-Andrew

--
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt | acedit at armory.com | astitt at sourcemage.org |
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page