My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
________________________________
The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
I would be happy to see Poly/ML development happening in a git repository.
For the particular scenario you describe (various versions of the sources in stable and unstable states), I would just use different branches within one public repository rather than bothering with multiple public repositories. Branches in git are cheap.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:53 PM, David Matthews < David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
I agree with Ramana, and recently found a very nice tutorial describing different workflows using git branches:
https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows
I am using the "Feature Branch Workflow" in my open source projects, which allows me to commit and push even very rough pieces of code to a feature branch without breaking the trunk that other people might be using (e.g., Michael's Travis CI system).
Cheers,
Joe
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Ramana Kumar <ramana at member.fsf.org> wrote:
I would be happy to see Poly/ML development happening in a git repository.
For the particular scenario you describe (various versions of the sources in stable and unstable states), I would just use different branches within one public repository rather than bothering with multiple public repositories. Branches in git are cheap.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:53 PM, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
Thanks for the update.
Like the others, I think git is probably a better system than Subversion. But I don?t expect your choice will have much impact on me (this error is the first I?ve seen when building straight from svn), so I?m sure I will be happy with whatever you choose. :-)
Michael
On 31 Mar 2015, at 22:53, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
________________________________
The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.
I would recommend git/github over svn. Much easier to manage contributions: branches give food flexibility, and git has better merging than svn also. On Mar 31, 2015 3:28 PM, "Michael Norrish" <Michael.Norrish at nicta.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the update.
Like the others, I think git is probably a better system than Subversion. But I don?t expect your choice will have much impact on me (this error is the first I?ve seen when building straight from svn), so I?m sure I will be happy with whatever you choose. :-)
Michael
On 31 Mar 2015, at 22:53, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk>
wrote:
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now
so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether
to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments. _______________________________________________ polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_ entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Lucas Dixon <lucas.dixon at gmail.com> wrote:
I would recommend git/github over svn. Much easier to manage contributions: branches give food flexibility, and git has better merging than svn also. On Mar 31, 2015 3:28 PM, "Michael Norrish" <Michael.Norrish at nicta.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the update.
Like the others, I think git is probably a better system than Subversion. But I don?t expect your choice will have much impact on me (this error is the first I?ve seen when building straight from svn), so I?m sure I will be happy with whatever you choose. :-)
Michael
On 31 Mar 2015, at 22:53, David Matthews <
David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
This was a problem with the SVN version of Poly/ML. I've fixed it now
so it should build.
This has raised, though, a question I've been wondering about: whether
to switch from sourceforge SVN to git and github. It's very convenient to be able to commit works-in-progress at various stages even if they're not complete. It makes it much easier to track down bugs by bisection if each commit is not too large. The disadvantage with SVN is that it's not clear to anyone using the repository whether it is meant to be in a stable state and meant for beta testing or whether it is unstable and perhaps not even alpha tested. It's much easier with a multi-stage source management system such as git or mercurial to have a "private" repository and only push to the "main" repository when the set of commits are complete.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
David
On 31/03/2015 09:56, Michael Norrish wrote:
My Travis CI builds of HOL using a Subversion checkout of Poly (as opposed to the released version, which I also check), are failing to build Poly with the error below. (See also https://travis-ci.org/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL/jobs/56529081).
Is this expected, or some quirk of the Travis setup?
Michael
--
Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1607. Value or constructor (decodeBinary) has not been declared Error- in './basis/FinalPolyML.sml', line 1608. Value or constructor (encodeBinary) has not been declared Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace Exception trace for exception - Fail raised in mlsource/MLCompiler/MAKE_.ML line 423 MAKE_().useIntoEnv(2) <top level> CODETREE().genCode(3)(1) COMPILER_BODY().baseCompiler(3)executeCode(1) End of trace
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments. _______________________________________________ polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ramana Kumar wrote:
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_ entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
Pointing to alternatives of Github, such as Bitbucket, it is also possible to see beyond git as well, and consider Mercurial.
There is mainly a cultural difference: git users like flashy tools and big noisy communities, Mercurial users like to use a tool quietely without much ado about it. So strictly speaking, as a Mercurial user I could not even advertize that here, but on 01-Apr one could probably make an exception.
Makarius
On 01/04/2015 10:46, Makarius wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ramana Kumar wrote:
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_ entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
Pointing to alternatives of Github, such as Bitbucket, it is also possible to see beyond git as well, and consider Mercurial.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I was thinking of Git and Github since I've got a little bit of experience with them but I'm still trying to get to grips with Git.
For the moment it may be best to keep the SourceForge SVN going as the primary repository.
David
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, David Matthews wrote:
I was thinking of Git and Github since I've got a little bit of experience with them but I'm still trying to get to grips with Git.
Maybe this website helps :-) http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net
Makarius
I've set up a git repository at GitHub. It's at https://github.com/polyml . So far it's in sync with the SourceForge subversion repository. I've reorganised the structure slightly so that "polyml" is just the Poly/ML sources with the documentation as a sub-directory and the jEdit plugin is a separate repository.
At least for the moment, I'll keep SourceForge SVN as the "official" repository.
David
On 03/04/2015 16:56, David Matthews wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:46, Makarius wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ramana Kumar wrote:
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_ entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
Pointing to alternatives of Github, such as Bitbucket, it is also possible to see beyond git as well, and consider Mercurial.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I was thinking of Git and Github since I've got a little bit of experience with them but I'm still trying to get to grips with Git.
For the moment it may be best to keep the SourceForge SVN going as the primary repository.
David
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
So what's your opinion of the git repository now? Should it be official?
Either way, you might like to mention it on the Poly/ML website :)
On 16 April 2015 at 21:49, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
I've set up a git repository at GitHub. It's at https://github.com/polyml . So far it's in sync with the SourceForge subversion repository. I've reorganised the structure slightly so that "polyml" is just the Poly/ML sources with the documentation as a sub-directory and the jEdit plugin is a separate repository.
At least for the moment, I'll keep SourceForge SVN as the "official" repository.
David
On 03/04/2015 16:56, David Matthews wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:46, Makarius wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ramana Kumar wrote:
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_
entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
Pointing to alternatives of Github, such as Bitbucket, it is also possible to see beyond git as well, and consider Mercurial.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I was thinking of Git and Github since I've got a little bit of experience with them but I'm still trying to get to grips with Git.
For the moment it may be best to keep the SourceForge SVN going as the primary repository.
David
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
The original idea was to experiment with github but port the changes to svn on SourceForge. In practice the git repository has got a bit ahead and there are quite a few changes that I need to apply to bring svn into line. I had in mind keeping svn going as far as the next release but I'm wondering about that now. Having two "official" repositories is complicated.
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
David
On 07/08/2015 07:43, Ramana Kumar wrote:
So what's your opinion of the git repository now? Should it be official?
Either way, you might like to mention it on the Poly/ML website :)
On 16 April 2015 at 21:49, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
I've set up a git repository at GitHub. It's at https://github.com/polyml . So far it's in sync with the SourceForge subversion repository. I've reorganised the structure slightly so that "polyml" is just the Poly/ML sources with the documentation as a sub-directory and the jEdit plugin is a separate repository.
At least for the moment, I'll keep SourceForge SVN as the "official" repository.
David
On 03/04/2015 16:56, David Matthews wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:46, Makarius wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Ramana Kumar wrote:
In case there's any confusion about it, switching to git does _not_
entail switching to GitHub, which merely provides hosting for git repositories with a lot of "social" features and a nice web interface. Git repositories can be hosted at many places (e.g., savannah.nongnu.org, gitbull.org, bitbucket.org, etc.) and can be self-hosted (like git.kernel.org), or any combination of these simultaneously.
Pointing to alternatives of Github, such as Bitbucket, it is also possible to see beyond git as well, and consider Mercurial.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I was thinking of Git and Github since I've got a little bit of experience with them but I'm still trying to get to grips with Git.
For the moment it may be best to keep the SourceForge SVN going as the primary repository.
David
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
On 2015-08-07 14:38, David Matthews wrote:
The original idea was to experiment with github but port the changes to svn on SourceForge. In practice the git repository has got a bit ahead and there are quite a few changes that I need to apply to bring svn into line. I had in mind keeping svn going as far as the next release but I'm wondering about that now. Having two "official" repositories is complicated.
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
Why not use Mercurial instead of Git, which can do as much as Git but is simpler to use for novices?
Walther
I remain in favour of phasing out SVN in favour of Git.
For Walther: I find Git much more intuitive than Mercurial, but thankfully there are bidirectional bridges between the systems, so one can always use their preferred one.
On 7 August 2015 at 23:36, Walther Neuper <wneuper at ist.tugraz.at> wrote:
On 2015-08-07 14:38, David Matthews wrote:
The original idea was to experiment with github but port the changes to svn on SourceForge. In practice the git repository has got a bit ahead and there are quite a few changes that I need to apply to bring svn into line. I had in mind keeping svn going as far as the next release but I'm wondering about that now. Having two "official" repositories is complicated.
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
Why not use Mercurial instead of Git, which can do as much as Git but is simpler to use for novices?
Walther
polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
I prefer git myself (for better or worse it is more of a standard with the success of github); anyway I would be supportive of moving to just git. :)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015, 09:41 Walther Neuper <wneuper at ist.tugraz.at> wrote:
On 2015-08-07 14:38, David Matthews wrote:
The original idea was to experiment with github but port the changes to svn on SourceForge. In practice the git repository has got a bit ahead and there are quite a few changes that I need to apply to bring svn into line. I had in mind keeping svn going as far as the next release but I'm wondering about that now. Having two "official" repositories is complicated.
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
Why not use Mercurial instead of Git, which can do as much as Git but is simpler to use for novices?
Walther _______________________________________________ polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Lucas Dixon wrote:
I prefer git myself (for better or worse it is more of a standard with the success of github); anyway I would be supportive of moving to just git. :)
This perception of Github as the one and only one standard reminds of Sourceforge many years ago. Now Sourceforge has become a big problem. I usually use Bitbucket with Mercurial, but is also supports Git.
After many years of using Mercurial, I still don't manage anything significant with git -- too much weight and importance of the tool itself, compared to the tasks it addresses. See also http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/
Maybe I shall take a serious look at the Mercurial + Git front-end https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ but it would mean to stop using Linux just for the sake of Git.
Makarius
On 2015-08-07 13:38 +0100, David Matthews wrote:
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
I support moving fully to git.
As for github v. bitbucket and git v. mercurial: these are two different decisions, as for each tool there are alternative hosting solutions. Even savannah.gnu.org does git nowadays! So let's take the tool decision first. I admit that I support git mainly because that's what I use for everything else; they have, by and large, the same power.
About the hosting, both github and bitbucket are impenetrable Web 2.0 thickets to me, and I would prefer not to use either but something like repo.or.cz. But at least github is usable without enabling unlimited redirections to random CDNs; bitbucket is not. So if it has to be one of these 2, github please.
On 07/08/2015 13:38, David Matthews wrote:
The original idea was to experiment with github but port the changes to svn on SourceForge. In practice the git repository has got a bit ahead and there are quite a few changes that I need to apply to bring svn into line. I had in mind keeping svn going as far as the next release but I'm wondering about that now. Having two "official" repositories is complicated.
What are people's opinions about phasing out SVN in favour of Git?
Thank you everyone for your input. It's interesting that no one seems to be in favour of remaining with Subversion.
I take the points about Mercurial but I get the impression that Git is more widely used. From a purely personal point of view I've had to get to grips with Git for other projects so it's not that much extra effort. There also seem to be better tools for Git than Mercurial.
I've updated the web site to point to the Git repository. I'll probably commit something to SVN to point out that it's no longer being updated.
David
-
David.Matthews＠prolingua.co.uk -
itz＠buug.org -
joe＠gilith.com -
lucas.dixon＠gmail.com -
makarius＠sketis.net -
Michael.Norrish＠nicta.com.au -
Ramana.Kumar＠cl.cam.ac.uk -
ramana＠member.fsf.org -
wneuper＠ist.tugraz.at