[implementations-list] style; VCS

[Štěpán Němec]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:10:46AM +0000, Vegard Øye wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:22:57 +0100
> > From: stepnem at gmail.com
> >
> > 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