From pc at p-cos.net  Sun Jul 17 18:55:06 2005
From: pc at p-cos.net (Pascal Costanza)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:55:06 +0200
Subject: [closer-devel] CVS or Darcs?
Message-ID: <86143C98-142B-488A-89D5-79593E8F6691@p-cos.net>

Hi,

I am currently finalizing a new release of MOP feature tests and  
Closer to MOP. In order to ease future updates I am considering to  
use a code revision system. The two best options I can see are CVS  
and Darcs. CVS has the advantage that it is widely used and directly  
supported by common-lisp.net. On the other hand, Darcs seems to have  
a conceptually much simpler model and, for example, eases checkouts  
and distributed development. (For example, for checkout, a tool like  
wget is totally sufficient.)

See http://www.gnu.org/software/cvs/ for CVS and http:// 
www.darcs.net/ for Darcs. Bill Clementson has recently discussed  
Darcs at http://bc.tech.coop/blog/050710.html

Does anyone of you have a strong opinion in this regard? Currently, I  
have a slight tendency towards Darcs, but both options would probably  
be fine for me.

Any commenst are highly appreciated.

Cheers,
Pascal

--
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/




From mb at bese.it  Mon Jul 18 07:32:22 2005
From: mb at bese.it (Marco Baringer)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:32:22 +0200
Subject: [closer-devel] CVS or Darcs?
In-Reply-To: <86143C98-142B-488A-89D5-79593E8F6691@p-cos.net> (Pascal
	Costanza's message of "Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:55:06 +0200")
References: <86143C98-142B-488A-89D5-79593E8F6691@p-cos.net>
Message-ID: <m2zmska7sp.fsf@soma.local>

Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> writes:

> Does anyone of you have a strong opinion in this regard? Currently, I
> have a slight tendency towards Darcs, but both options would probably
> be fine for me.

if the choices are just CVS and darcs i would *strongly* urgue you to
use darcs. reasons:

1) darcs tracks changes by 'patch' and not 'file edit' (two edits (or
   moves or whatever) to different files are treated as a single
   entity by darcs).

2) darcs is very simple to setup (this is not such a big deal for the
   core develpors of large projects but makes a world of difference
   for people who contribute rarely).

3) darcs can figure out the dependncy of patches and will not let you
   apply a patch out of order.

4) darcs deals very well with 'cherry picking' (its only real
   competitore in this regard is monotone). this makes collecting
   patches from other developers much easier, for example: you can
   grab one patch from a contributor today and grab another one a wek
   from now without grabbing the intermediate patches. if in a month
   you want to merge in all the remaining patches you can do that
   without problems.

personalyl i prefer arch's structure (using darcs feels like
navigating in a sea of patches all alike) though its interface is
cryptic and difficult to use (even after a year of constant use).

p.s. - i was a long time CVS user before moving over to arch. I've
been using darcs for only the last few months.

-- 
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
	-Leonard Cohen


From pc at p-cos.net  Tue Jul 19 11:38:31 2005
From: pc at p-cos.net (Pascal Costanza)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:38:31 +0200
Subject: [closer-devel] CVS or Darcs?
In-Reply-To: <m2zmska7sp.fsf@soma.local>
References: <86143C98-142B-488A-89D5-79593E8F6691@p-cos.net>
	<m2zmska7sp.fsf@soma.local>
Message-ID: <58889C64-6931-43BB-A325-4B22EE0BB62B@p-cos.net>


On 18 Jul 2005, at 09:32, Marco Baringer wrote:

> Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> writes:
>
>> Does anyone of you have a strong opinion in this regard? Currently, I
>> have a slight tendency towards Darcs, but both options would probably
>> be fine for me.
>
> if the choices are just CVS and darcs i would *strongly* urgue you to
> use darcs.

Thanks a lot for your reply. I have played around a little with darcs  
by now, I could even try it out on the common-lisp.net machine  
because it's already installed there. Seems to really work like a  
charm - once you play around with it, it turns out to be conceptually  
very simple and straightforward. So I will definitely go for it.


Thanks again,
Pascal

--
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/