[Nitro] Revisiting some Og issues again: RFC
nyarly at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 20:33:50 EST 2007
On Nov 30, 2007 4:11 PM, Jonathan Buch <john at oxyliquit.de> wrote:
> 1) Git
> 2) Darcs
> 3) Arch
> 4) SVN
If we're playing the favorites game, here's my thinking.
My experience with darcs has been exclusively with Nitro. Workflow looks
like: get the repo, make a change, check in, export a patch, send it to the
list. Repeat from *get the repo*. Which is stupid, IMO, but trying to just
update my local repo for Nitro more often than not destroys whatever work
I'd done. Plus, pulling the repo yesterday, all of 47 patches took >
30minutes, and wailed on my proc for the whole time. To put it bluntly, I'm
not a fan.
Looking at git, it looks okay. I haven't used it, myself, but from what
I've read it's strongly influenced by the design for Monotone, which I do
use and like a lot. The biggest differences seem to be ease of use and
performance (the later, I think, won't make much difference for a project
the size of Og.) I'm always glad to have an opportunity to form a
reasonable opinion of an important technology.
SVN is simple, functional, and couldn't be easier for us. Someone else is
managing the repo, tools are widespread and mature. I've been using it at
work for a while now and am comfortable with it, if not in love. This
single biggest advantage of SVN is that we could have a sensible repo set up
pretty much Right Now, with dev branch(es) etc. At least, this is the
theory. I was looking earlier, and Nitro was created as CVS, which would
mean getting the RF guys to switch it over - they're good, but we'd still
wait a day or two.
So, my list of favorites looks like:
Your subnet is currently 169.254.0.0/16. You are likely to be eaten by a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nitro-general