Sorry for not answering any questions for past two weeks, I'll try to get around answering them in next few days.
I've also been thinking about if I should switch from CVS to Darcs. It seems to be exactly the kind of reversion control tool I had wanted to use. Anyone have comments for or against it? I'd still have read-only CVS repository generated from it, although I couldn't yet find a way to do it.
Anyway, test53:
- Recent flag counters should finally be correct
- dovecot-shared file actually works correctly now
- Cache file works with mmap_disable = yes (still some small issues though)
- Lots of internal changes in indexing code, especially for mmap_disable = yes
- DIGEST-MD5 authentication works again
- etc.
It's been running with me for 45mins without breaking. Guess it should work. :)
Timo Sirainen wrote:
I've also been thinking about if I should switch from CVS to Darcs. It seems to be exactly the kind of reversion control tool I had wanted to use. Anyone have comments for or against it? I'd still have read-only CVS repository generated from it, although I couldn't yet find a way to do it.
I cannot speak for or against Darcs (since I haven't used it), but I can say that Subversion is my preferred version control system:
http://subversion.tigris.orgalong with a third party tool svk:
http://svk.elixus.org/which make mirroring multiple remote projects very easy as well as vastly simplifying branch management and merging. It is also possible to use VCP (an opensource tool from the Perforce people) to copy from one version control system to another (and often back again). I use this to mirror a remote CVS repository (or three) using svk; it could also be used to create a readonly CVS mirror of a Subversion repository. The Subversion project cvs2svn also does a very nice job of converting full cvs history into a Subversion database (branches and tags).
However, I'm primarily a _consumer_ of these remote resources, not a _producer_. Consequently, my most important feature is the ability to maintain a local branch for my personal patches (some of which I then submit to the original project), as well as the ability to merge upstream changes into my mirrored repository.
You, however, are a _producer_, in that you are the primary (only?) developer of dovecot, so your needs are probably very different. From a casual reading of the Darcs website, it seems to be focused on distributed development (multiple developers) without an authoritative repository. Perhaps that's what you want to do; I cannot say.
John
-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5747
On 2004-11-29 09:01:09 -0500, John Peacock wrote:
I cannot speak for or against Darcs (since I haven't used it), but I can say that Subversion is my preferred version control system:
along with a third party tool svk:
which make mirroring multiple remote projects very easy as well as vastly simplifying branch management and merging. It is also possible to use VCP (an opensource tool from the Perforce people) to copy from one version control system to another (and often back again). I use this to mirror a remote CVS repository (or three) using svk; it could also be used to create a readonly CVS mirror of a Subversion repository. The Subversion project cvs2svn also does a very nice job of converting full cvs history into a Subversion database (branches and tags).
i vote for svn aswell. timo should know why. =) and i think the conversion of irssi to svn worked so nicely.
darix
-- irssi - the client of the smart and beautiful people
http://www.irssi.de/Timo Sirainen said:
I've also been thinking about if I should switch from CVS to Darcs. It seems to be exactly the kind of reversion control tool I had wanted to use. Anyone have comments for or against it? I'd still have read-only CVS repository generated from it, although I couldn't yet find a way to do it.
There's been an extensive thread/review of it on the gnu-arch mailing list, but of course as one of the competitors we (on that mailing list) rather view darcs as a competitor. I've come out of that with the conclusion that while a really nice tool to use, darcs is too much a memory hog for me to use.
That said, here's the obvious: be sure to investigate gnu arch, whether it is as tla or baz (bazaar).
johannes
On 29.11.2004, at 17:28, Johannes Berg wrote:
There's been an extensive thread/review of it on the gnu-arch mailing list, but of course as one of the competitors we (on that mailing list) rather view darcs as a competitor. I've come out of that with the conclusion that while a really nice tool to use, darcs is too much a memory hog for me to use.
I don't see it as such a big issue. It's all in the client side anyway as the server does nothing but transfer the files. That's one reason I like it so much, it's simple and it doesn't require any complicated server setups. I'll just put the tree somewhere accessible with sftp and http and that's it.
That said, here's the obvious: be sure to investigate gnu arch, whether it is as tla or baz (bazaar).
arch was my previous potential alternative, but I never got around feeling it was worth it to switch from CVS. Perhaps baz makes the user interface easier to use, but it still just doesn't feel as pretty and clean as Darcs :)
Timo Sirainen wrote:
like it so much, it's simple and it doesn't require any complicated server setups. I'll just put the tree somewhere accessible with sftp and http and that's it.
I was curious, so I looked around a little more and found this nice comparison between many different SCM programs:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.htmlthough that is a little out of date, since it doesn't cover the Subversion 1.1 changes (including a new filesystem-based backend). Fair warning that Shlomi Fish (the author of the above comparison) is primarily a Subversion user (and BitKeeper escapee).
HTH
John
-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5747
Perforce is my prefered SCCS - changesets and merging/branching are fantastic.
It's free for open source use.
-D
<noah> I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure.
participants (5)
-
Dan Sully
-
Johannes Berg
-
John Peacock
-
Marcus Rueckert
-
Timo Sirainen