FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-27-2007, 12:06 PM
Martin Marques
 
Default CVS is dead

Michael Schwendt escribió:
> On 27/12/2007, Martin Marques wrote:
>> Karl Larsen escribió:
>>> Beginning now I planned to learn what CVS is and look for
>>> instructions on wiki care and feeding.
>> Please Karl. CVS is dead. Check Mercurial, which is great, has a book to
>> learn how to use it, is distributed and has an excelent help:
>
> Still, CVS is very relevant to Fedora, since several of its
> repositories use CVS. The source RPM contents are maintained in CVS,
> for example.
>

AFAIK, migration to git is on it's way.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 12:07 PM
Martin Marques
 
Default CVS is dead

Robert P. J. Day escribió:
>
> and if one were to start a new project that didn't have to be strictly
> backward compatible with anything, and one already had a decent
> grounding in CVS, subversion would also be a reasonable choice.

Why?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 12:26 PM
"Robert P. J. Day"
 
Default CVS is dead

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Martin Marques wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day escribió:
> >
> > and if one were to start a new project that didn't have to be strictly
> > backward compatible with anything, and one already had a decent
> > grounding in CVS, subversion would also be a reasonable choice.
>
> Why?

because subversion corrects a number of CVS "issues", and the command
structure is very similar to that of CVS, so all that CVS knowledge
can be transferred over fairly quickly.

i didn't say that subversion was the best version control system of
all the possible choices -- only that, if one was already fairly
conversant with CVS, it would be a "reasonable" choice for a new
project.

rday
--

================================================== ======================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
================================================== ======================--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 01:50 PM
Martin Marques
 
Default CVS is dead

Robert P. J. Day escribió:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Martin Marques wrote:
>
>> Robert P. J. Day escribió:
>>> and if one were to start a new project that didn't have to be strictly
>>> backward compatible with anything, and one already had a decent
>>> grounding in CVS, subversion would also be a reasonable choice.
>> Why?
>
> because subversion corrects a number of CVS "issues", and the command
> structure is very similar to that of CVS, so all that CVS knowledge
> can be transferred over fairly quickly.

I will talk about Mercurial, that is what I use.

Mercurial fixes all the CVS *issues* and also has the same command
structure:

hg status
hg commit -m "some comment"
hg add
hg diff
etc.

And you can start to enter the wonderful world of distributed VCS. :-D

> i didn't say that subversion was the best version control system of
> all the possible choices -- only that, if one was already fairly
> conversant with CVS, it would be a "reasonable" choice for a new
> project.

All the new VCS have tried to keep the same command structure, not only svn


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:07 PM
Timothy Selivanow
 
Default CVS is dead

On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 07:38 -0800, Les wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 22:38 -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> > Karl Larsen escribió:
> > >
> > > Beginning now I planned to learn what CVS is and look for
> > > instructions on wiki care and feeding.
> >
> > Please Karl. CVS is dead. Check Mercurial, which is great, has a book to
> > learn how to use it, is distributed and has an excelent help:
> >
> > $ yum install mercurial
> > $ hg help
> >
> > Be happy! :-D
> >
> SourceForge still uses CVS, as do many other development places. There
> are other revision control packages, but until you mentioned it, I had
> never heard of Mercurial. Of course I am an "Old Fart", so that may
> mean something to put it in context.
>
> Regards,
> Les H

SF also uses Subversion: https://sourceforge.net/docs/E09

I prefer SVN, only because when I started learning a VCS (both as a user
and admin) I chose SVN because it was new and a lot of people on the
intarwebs were talking about it. I like some of the features it has
over CVS, but CVS is still quite adequate and fairly flexible.


__________________________________________________ ____________________
/ Democracy is a form of government in which it is permitted to wonder
| aloud what the country could do under first-class management. |
-- Senator Soaper /
----------------------------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:09 PM
"Michael Schwendt"
 
Default CVS is dead

On 27/12/2007, Martin Marques <martin@marquesminen.com.ar> wrote:
> Michael Schwendt escribió:
> > On 27/12/2007, Martin Marques wrote:
> >> Karl Larsen escribió:
> >>> Beginning now I planned to learn what CVS is and look for
> >>> instructions on wiki care and feeding.
> >> Please Karl. CVS is dead. Check Mercurial, which is great, has a book to
> >> learn how to use it, is distributed and has an excelent help:
> >
> > Still, CVS is very relevant to Fedora, since several of its
> > repositories use CVS. The source RPM contents are maintained in CVS,
> > for example.
> >
>
> AFAIK, migration to git is on it's way.

But Git is not Mercurial.

Whether migration to Git is on its way, I can't tell. The Fedora Wiki
feels like a labyrinth and is slow to search. Switching Fedora Package
CVS to another SCM system is a controversy for several years. Whenever
it happens, it will make a small target group happy and will be
considered a nuisance by many others (especially those who've tried to
advocate their favourite SCM system). I hope Fedora leadership will
not unleash something half-baked onto the volunteers.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:21 PM
Martin Marques
 
Default CVS is dead

Les escribió:

On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 22:38 -0300, Martin Marques wrote:


$ yum install mercurial
$ hg help

Be happy! :-D


SourceForge still uses CVS, as do many other development places. There


SourceForge is migrating to Subversion.


are other revision control packages, but until you mentioned it, I had
never heard of Mercurial. Of course I am an "Old Fart", so that may
mean something to put it in context.


Les, at least you heard about about git, right?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:28 PM
Martin Marques
 
Default CVS is dead

Michael Schwendt escribió:

On 27/12/2007, Martin Marques <martin@marquesminen.com.ar> wrote:



AFAIK, migration to git is on it's way.


But Git is not Mercurial.


Any of the 2 are far better then CVS! :-D


Whether migration to Git is on its way, I can't tell. The Fedora Wiki
feels like a labyrinth and is slow to search. Switching Fedora Package


Ahhh, they are looking to migrate the wiki as well. :-)

MoinMoin is hell.


CVS to another SCM system is a controversy for several years. Whenever


I think you are confused.

The migration is for internal, but public, use. Specifically to maintain
revision of packages (spec files) of Fedora and maybe also of Redhat in
general.


You will always find packages of CVS, Subversion, git, Mercurial,
Monotone, Bazaar, etc. in Fedora so there shouldn't be any controversy.



it happens, it will make a small target group happy and will be
considered a nuisance by many others (especially those who've tried to
advocate their favourite SCM system). I hope Fedora leadership will
not unleash something half-baked onto the volunteers.


I hope I was clear.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:50 PM
"Michael Schwendt"
 
Default CVS is dead

On 27/12/2007, Martin Marques <martin@marquesminen.com.ar> wrote:
>
> > Whether migration to Git is on its way, I can't tell. The Fedora Wiki
> > feels like a labyrinth and is slow to search. Switching Fedora Package
>
> Ahhh, they are looking to migrate the wiki as well. :-)
>
> MoinMoin is hell.

It's not just the Wiki software that makes the Fedora Wiki
increasingly unpleasant to use. It's also the page layout and
structure. Somebody has had the brilliant idea to use tables with
narrow columns on the main pages, such as "Fedora Packaging". Not! --
Finding relevant pages is too difficult.

> > CVS to another SCM system is a controversy for several years. Whenever
>
> I think you are confused.

Nope. I've followed many of the related discussions, from early
evaluation of CVS for the Fedora Extras package collection to the
tiresome threads on fedora-maintainers list. The people who have tried
to replace cvs in favour of their own favourite scm/vcs, have yet to
agree.

> The migration is for internal, but public, use.

Eh? I don't understand that sentence. There's nothing "internal" about
replacing the scm system that will affect hundreds of contributors.

> Specifically to maintain
> revision of packages (spec files) of Fedora

That's what current /cvs/pkgs is all about. But there has been
/cvs/fedora for other projects, too.

> and maybe also of Redhat in general.

"Maybe" is a guess. Several decisions on infrastructure changes come
from inside of Red Hat and are pushed through the Fedora Project Board
without resistance.

> You will always find packages of CVS, Subversion, git, Mercurial,
> Monotone, Bazaar, etc. in Fedora so there shouldn't be any controversy.

Uhm, the mailing-list archives (e.g. fedora-maintainers) disagree.

> I hope I was clear.

No.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 12-27-2007, 04:59 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default CVS is dead

Martin Marques wrote:


Mercurial fixes all the CVS *issues* and also has the same command
structure:

hg status
hg commit -m "some comment"
hg add
hg diff
etc.

And you can start to enter the wonderful world of distributed VCS. :-D


i didn't say that subversion was the best version control system of
all the possible choices -- only that, if one was already fairly
conversant with CVS, it would be a "reasonable" choice for a new
project.


All the new VCS have tried to keep the same command structure, not only svn


CVS has problems caused by all of the history being kept in a single
file (it doesn't understand directory operations like renames), but the
up side is that you can track development 'forwards' from any point.
With svn, there's no way to start from an earlier tag and follow future
tags/branches of that same file. This must be even worse in distributed
VC's where the changes might not even exist in your copy of the
repository. Doesn't it bother you to know you might be repeating
someone else's mistakes because you can't track all the other changes
from a given point?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:09 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org