revision control software (VCS)

tetonedge · 2008-11-24 04:13:33

Hi all-

I am looking for a new VCS and was wondering what opinions existed in the arch community about which one to choose. I have used SVN and BZR in the past. I am about to start a new project and thought maybe I had a newer better option. I was wondering what anybody would suggest and why. Thanks for the info

dt

toofishes · 2008-11-24 04:39:16

If you are starting from scratch, I would highly recommend looking into a distributed VCS. I am biased toward GIT, but Hg (mercurial) is a viable option as well. They tend to have a higher learning curve, but the benefits they give you are absolutely huge. For more in-depth reasoning, I would head to the git homepage at http://git.or.cz.

buttons · 2008-11-24 04:40:55

git or any other distributed vcs is nice if you need to work from several locations, they don't always have internet access, and/or you like having the entire revision tree on your pc wherever you go.

I use git, because it's fast and simple. It's also compatible with svn.

I've never used bzr, so I couldn't speculate on the differences there.

xen · 2008-11-24 08:21:05

My favourite is git! There are a few free hosts but GitHub is definately my favourite. I also host local repositories for version control on my university documents.

Allan · 2008-11-24 08:28:31

Git is good.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GIT
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Sup … _Git_Guide

Zariel · 2008-11-24 10:38:39

+1 for git

tetonedge · 2008-11-24 15:12:05

I have looked at git and definitly looks like one I would like to try and test. I was looking at the documentation at git-daemon as I would like to set up a centralized server for this project, but when I install git from the repositories, this command is not there. Am i missing something?

dt

tetonedge · 2008-11-24 15:18:29

nevermind i am stupid, it is now git daemon, thanks for the help

mintcoffee · 2008-11-24 15:23:17

If you're coming from CVS and Subversion then I would definitely recommend Mercurial. It has a much lower learning curve when compared to git.

archlinuxsagi · 2008-11-24 16:27:37

me using mercurial too... mainly for work on windows pc. using TortoiseHg as the GUI frontend.

Dieter@be · 2008-11-24 16:36:51

also take a look at github.com.. it's very easy to create repositories there, clone from other people, comment on commits, pull from each other etc. It's like social networking for git.

Daenyth · 2008-11-24 17:22:23

Unquestionably I would recommend git. It's blazingly fast, very very easy to use, and it does more than any other VCS

I found these links helpful:
http://tomayko.com/topics/git
http://tomayko.com/writings/the-thing-about-git

archlinuxsagi · 2008-11-24 22:30:58

Anybody use GUI front-end for git?

Allan · 2008-11-24 22:48:10

I tend to use use gitk which come with the git package. But that is more just for browsing recent patches and not for actually doing any repo management.

dsr · 2008-11-24 23:31:37

I've heard that Mercurial is much easier to use than Git, but I've never used either. Git probably has some functionality that Mercurial doesn't have. In any case, distributed version control software in general is supposed to be better than svn/cvs (non-distributed version control software, perhaps?).

rcoyner · 2008-11-25 01:28:59

My personal preference is Git.

But you should probably learn how to use Subversion as well. A lot of open source projects use it still, a lot of project hosting services (Google Code, Sourceforge) use it, and a lot of software companies use it. Learn both if you can.

Daenyth · 2008-11-25 03:38:41

Git also provides a git-svn interface, so you can continue using git to interact with an svn repo.

Dieter@be · 2008-11-25 09:33:53

dsr wrote:

I've heard that Mercurial is much easier to use than Git

That seems to be remainders of information that once was true and some people keep on repeating even though the situation seems to have changed a lot.
See http://jointheconversation.org/2008/11/24/on-mercurial/ Maybe that dude is a bit biased, but his post is quite detailed and more funded than the random claims you can read on the interwebs

Personally I also think Git can be quite complicated, but that's more because of it's extensive features then anything else. If you limit yourself to only use cvs/svn-alike operations then it's very easy

Last edited by Dieter@be (2008-11-25 09:37:34)

archlinuxsagi · 2008-11-25 15:57:28

IIRC git is definitely faster than mercurial. But that is in the Unix world. Not so in windows. Me work in a company using windows only.
Pro and cons and using git and mercurial. :-)

toofishes · 2008-11-25 20:25:08

Dang, GIT has really taken off in the Arch community. I expected a few people to come up with other things.

As a side note- we run git-daemon on the Arch server through xinetd, which is pretty easy to get set up and working. We also run gitweb as a CGI script, although I would really like to get this running under either mod_perl or some sort of fastcgi wrapper which would speed it up a bit more.

tetonedge · 2008-11-25 20:26:52

can you give me some guidance on how you are running git-daemon through xinetd as I can't seem to get it to work, thanks

dt

catwell · 2008-11-26 20:14:49

toofishes wrote:

Dang, GIT has really taken off in the Arch community. I expected a few people to come up with other things.

I use Darcs. It's very easy to use and it suits my needs very well.

dsr · 2008-11-26 22:04:33

Dieter@be wrote:

dsr wrote:
I've heard that Mercurial is much easier to use than Git
That seems to be remainders of information that once was true and some people keep on repeating even though the situation seems to have changed a lot.
See http://jointheconversation.org/2008/11/24/on-mercurial/ Maybe that dude is a bit biased, but his post is quite detailed and more funded than the random claims you can read on the interwebs

Thanks. Assuming that article is factually correct (and I assume it is), it sounds like there's really no reason to use mercurial over git.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-11-24 04:13:33

revision control software (VCS)

#2 2008-11-24 04:39:16

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#3 2008-11-24 04:40:55

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#4 2008-11-24 08:21:05

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#5 2008-11-24 08:28:31

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#6 2008-11-24 10:38:39

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#7 2008-11-24 15:12:05

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#8 2008-11-24 15:18:29

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#9 2008-11-24 15:23:17

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#10 2008-11-24 16:27:37

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#11 2008-11-24 16:36:51

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#12 2008-11-24 17:22:23

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#13 2008-11-24 22:30:58

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#14 2008-11-24 22:48:10

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#15 2008-11-24 23:31:37

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#16 2008-11-25 01:28:59

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#17 2008-11-25 03:38:41

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#18 2008-11-25 09:33:53

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#19 2008-11-25 15:57:28

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#20 2008-11-25 20:25:08

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#21 2008-11-25 20:26:52

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#22 2008-11-26 20:14:49

Re: revision control software (VCS)

#23 2008-11-26 22:04:33

Re: revision control software (VCS)

Board footer