I've been using git to manage the Dillo source locally. I just installed mercurial to experiment with. Things I like about git are the ability to rebase, ie. reorder patches. This is neat because I can develop a patch on top of my local modifications and then push it down the stack so that I submit a patch against the pristine source rather than my customised version. The ability to stash your current changes in a temporary branch is useful too. You could do all this with explicit branches, but it would be more involved and git gives you nice, quick and easy ways to do the same thing. Mercurial seems to be the same sort of beast, though perhaps it is a bit less of a "Swiss Army Chainsaw" than git. I'd be surprised if there were any real issues using either to manage Dillo since I doubt we'd be using anything more than the basic facilities that both offer. I'd prefer git but only out of laziness as it's the one I already know (which means I should probably investigate mercurial just to broaden my mind if nothing else). Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:57:57AM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I've been using git to manage the Dillo source locally. I just installed mercurial to experiment with. Things I like about git are the ability to rebase, ie. reorder patches. This is neat because I can develop a patch on top of my local modifications and then push it down the stack so that I submit a patch against the pristine source rather than my customised version. The ability to stash your current changes in a temporary branch is useful too. You could do all this with explicit branches, but it would be more involved and git gives you nice, quick and easy ways to do the same thing.
Mercurial seems to be the same sort of beast, though perhaps it is a bit less of a "Swiss Army Chainsaw" than git. I'd be surprised if there were any real issues using either to manage Dillo since I doubt we'd be using anything more than the basic facilities that both offer. I'd prefer git but only out of laziness as it's the one I already know (which means I should probably investigate mercurial just to broaden my mind if nothing else).
It's the same for me with git. I wouldn't mind learning to use it. Given the current patch-rate we could also easily stick with CVS for the main repository I think. It's just for the longer living css-prototype branch where I wanted something more comfortable than CVS. Regards, Johannes
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:17:05PM +0100, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
Given the current patch-rate we could also easily stick with CVS for the main repository I think. It's just for the longer living css-prototype branch where I wanted something more comfortable than CVS.
So what will happen to non-css patches (*cough* HTTP auth *cough*)? Will they go into CVS or the dillo-main Mercurial repository? Didn't Jorge say something about committing only to Mercurial for a while? (Or did I misunderstand?) To be honest, why not migrate to Mercurial now? After all, CVS *is* obsolete and clunky, Mercurial *can* do the job, and some key Dillo developers are *already* maintaining and using Mercurial repositories of the Dillo source. It would also save me the trouble of layering git over CVS just to manage my local patches. Why not just do it? Regards, Jeremy Henty -- And so concludes the verse "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll. A piece of nonsense verse embedded in a nonsense work, it resembles the "real world" about as much as a computer program does. Which is perhaps why Lewis Carroll is so popular among computer programmers. -- Craig A. Finseth.
participants (2)
-
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
onepoint＠starurchin.org