On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:10:46AM +0000, Vegard Øye wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:22:57 +0100 From: [email protected]
Yeah, well [Mercurial] would be an option, if it matters to stick with Assembla
What's wrong with Assembla?
Nothing I know of. I.e., I know nothing about Assembla. (BTW, now I looked, they do actually advertise Git, too. Is that a paid service?) There are certainly more options; I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with Assembla, esp. if *you* are happy with it (personally I prefer an as simple setup as possible -- just a repository and a public (i.e. not subscribed-only) mailing list; Vimpulse doesn't seem to be a project that would grow as far as to make a bug tracker and all the bells and whistles worth the trouble of being tied to some (proprietary?) provider; but it's the personal preference of the developer(s) that matters, of course).
I'm not the maintainer, so it's not my decision to make.
Uhm, honestly, Alessandro and Jason are just being (and have been for some time) ridiculous at this point if they perceive themselves as Vimpulse maintainers.
I think Jason did a good job as semi-maintainer while Alessandro was busy, but now I haven't heard from either since the release of Vimpulse 0.3.1.
I have the administrative privileges to add Mercurial source control, but I think it's too big a decision for me to make alone. The immediate costs, like unfamiliarity and loss of revision history, need to be taken into account as well.
Yes, sure. My suggestion came partly from my selfish interest, although I do think that having a DVCS repository might provide bigger incentive for possible contributors. As well as ease the development. I don't think you would lose revision history, though, both Git and Mercurial can import SVN repositories AFAIK.
Still, I am curious as to why you think it would be "soooo much more convenient" to use something else than SVN. :) While a dozen arguments against SVN can be googled in a heartbeat, what are /your/ reasons for disliking it? I want to know.
Heh. I guess what I can come up with probably won't surpass your Google search results. With Git it's trivial to have multiple versions of the code and switch between them within a fraction of second (branches). You have all the data locally, so you don't have to query the "master" version just to check out a different version or other operations; it provides nice looking diffs (possibly along with the log message at the same time -- is that possible with SVN? I so, wasn't able to figure it out) etc. etc. Why it would be soooo much more convenient for me (and others I believe) -- now I'm doing this: Actually I managed to make a script that updates the SVN repository and shows me the logs and then only the new diffs since the last update (w00t!! with CVS, I didn't manage to do even that -- if someone knows please do share the trick). But then I still use vimdiff to manually pick the changes I want to my local vimpulse. AFAIK there is no graceful way to do that with SVN (I totally suck at SVN, I never had to really use it, but that's also what I hear). With Git I would simply have my own branch(es) and rebase my changes on top of master, or cherry pick etc. Not speaking about very easy patch generation, stashes, add --interactive, blame taking line range argument, nothing taking annoying amount of time... Some of this is not possible with Mercurial, but as I said, I'd be fine with that, too (although it's certainly a pity everybody's not using Git yet ;-)). Štěpán