Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/ocamlnet

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:17:35PM -0400, gary%duzan.org@localhost wrote:
 > =>>  > (It seems obvious to me that git is the only reasonable choice
 > =>>  > these days, but perhaps that's not the common view here.)
 > =>>
 > =>> I don't see that. AFAICT the typical reaction to it around here lately
 > =>> is that its UI is unpardonably awful.
 > =>
 > => I agree with the critcism.  But I've come to the conclusion for work
 > => that the best approach overall is to use git and make people learn it
 > => (to the point of having multiple all-day classes).  We've used rebasing
 > => and history rewriting, and I don't think we could have done taht with
 > => other systems.
 > =>
 > => Point taken that there is not consensus or even close.
 > 
 >    Just to throw in my two cents, I've been using Mercurial (hg) on and
 > off for a few years, with a reasonable amount of success. It is largely
 > equivalent in functionality to git, the interface seems easier to use,
 > and while it isn't as popular as git, there are still a number of large
 > projects using it.

I have been using Mercurial fairly heavily for several years; it has a
couple rough edges and we'd probably need to write a couple extensions
before switching all of NetBSD over. It seems entirely preferable to
git, the major problems being (1) it requires Python and (2) nobody's
yet managed to do a repo conversion to it.

so,

 > I've even managed some success doing incremental
 > conversions from CVS (though the CVS repo could use a bit of cleanup to
 > make it seamless).

if you mean the NetBSD CVS repository please elaborate...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost