[Win32utils-devel] Git?

[Daniel Berger]

James Tucker wrote:
> 
> On 22 Oct 2009, at 02:37, Luis Lavena wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Luis Lavena wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so I've gone and learned git. Well, learned it well enough to get
>>>>> by, anyway. I can pull and push with the best of 'em!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are people on the list in favor of switching to git (on github)?
>>>>> Opposed? Or indifferent?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In favor here.
>>>>
>>>>> I personally can live with CVS, but I realize git is quite popular,
>>>>> and it might bring greater exposure to the project.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CVS has keep me out of the loop to contribute to this project, mostly
>>>> because installing and setting CVS has been pushed out of my brain in
>>>> favor of Mercurial, Subversion, Bazaar and Git itself.
>>>
>>> I guess I don't understand this. Ok, so it's easier to setup a git 
>>> server,
>>> but that's irrelevant since RF handles that for you. And cvs 
>>> co/add/commit
>>> are no different in practice.
>>>
>>
>> No, is not about the server, but the workflow. It is also the
>> inability to "offline" work or clone it so my I can keep I record of
>> my changes.
>>
>> For example, I don't remember the last time I installed or configure CVS.
> 
> Honestly, I hit a lot of SCMs regularly, and cvs is a bit of a pain with 
> it's authentication system. The thing is, git / hg / darcs / bz are much 
> more comfortable, and I'm coming to settle on git these days, because of 
> it's efficiency really. Most of the common commands are in muscle memory 
> anyway, and I've got other parts of my workflows aliased down to 2-3 
> chars for most operations.
> 
> The thing that a dcvs will give you, is the opportunity for others to 
> "take it away" for extended periods of time without having a merging 
> nightmare. I think this is a genuinely important feature for OSS.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> This seems to be the only real reason to do it - exposure.
>>>
>>
>>> From your POV, there are others in relation to performance, offline
>> functionality and of course, adaptive workflows.
>>
>>> Well, I'll probably move win32-api over first, with both the "C" and 
>>> "FFI"
>>> branches. Maybe this weekend.
>>>
>>
>> Excellent. Thank you.

Alright, I've got the C version up at:

http://github.com/djberg96/win32-api/

I haven't created the FFI branch yet but will get that up soon.

Regards,

Dan